PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 November],
	That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
	That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the present session,
	That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
	That in the next session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which is has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 2 December.

Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Disability Discrimination Act

Anthony D Wright: If he will make a statement on the effect of changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Maria Eagle: By ending the small employer exemption and extending the employment provisions to more occupations in October 2004, we will bring 1 million more employers and 7 million more jobs within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. From the same date, the new duties requiring service providers to tackle physical barriers to access will increase accessibility to services for the 8.6 million disabled people in this country. I hope that the changes, which are designed to facilitate greater participation by disabled people in all walks of life, will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Although it is recognised that the Government have done more to help disabled people than any previous Government, it is quite clear that such people still come up against barriers. A recent Scope survey found that 45 per cent. of employers reported that they were worried that they could not afford to employ a disabled person and that nearly 20 per cent. would be reluctant to employ such a person because they had not worked with one before. Will she tell us how the changes to the Disability Discrimination Act will resolve those difficulties?

Maria Eagle: Legislation sets a framework, and the issues that were highlighted by the Scope survey were more about raising awareness. Many small firms, and even larger firms, are not used to employing disabled people because such people have been excluded from the labour market. The firms make all kinds of assumptions about how difficult that would be, which are not borne out by the facts. May I suggest that small firms in my hon. Friend's constituency contact the Disability Rights Commission in the first instance, which can be done by accessing www.drc-gb.org? The website contains a wealth of advice on how firms can employ disabled people, so they will come to realise that it is not that difficult and that there often is no cost involved in employing them above that which is incurred when employing anyone.

Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister agree that any changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that might be a feature of the upcoming parliamentary Session would best be done using pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government have made it clear that they are willing to contemplate that, but is the Department yet able to say what form of pre-legislative scrutiny might take place on any disability discrimination Bill that might be introduced in the next Session?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is trying his best to get me to pre-empt the Queen's Speech, which of course I am far too junior to do. He is right to say that the Government set great store by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the consideration of such changes is especially suitable for such scrutiny. We shall consider that, but I cannot give him more information at present.

Tim Boswell: After our previous exchanges, will the Minister accept that it is still important that if further advances are to be made, legislation must become a reality? It is not just a matter of consultation, desirable as that may be, because the Government must get on and grasp the nettle on some of the details. If the Minister is holding out for pre-legislative scrutiny, will she at least bear in mind the importance of bringing to bear some of the recent reports of the Disability Rights Commission on its experience of the current legislation in action, to ensure that if we wait a long time for legislation, it will be worth having when we get it?

Maria Eagle: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, who I faced across the Dispatch Box when he was a Front-Bench spokesman on the matter, that I welcome his support? I hope that the fact that he now sits on the Back Benches when discussing the issue does not imply that there have been any policy changes by his party. I hope that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen will support the changes that are being suggested, which are generally well known, especially those that will take place next October. I hope that we will hear an expression of support for the changes from them when they speak. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) knows of my impatience to get on with this. Consultation is tremendously important when changes are visited on many organisations and small businesses but, at the end of the day, it is implementation that matters.

Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was a perfectly reasonable piece of legislation for its time, enhanced by this Government's actions, including the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission? Given the worries, which I think we both share, that some small businesses and others are being provoked into thinking that the implementation of the changes will be a huge challenge, will she join me in advising such people to contact the DRC, the Employers Forum on Disability and the national register of access so that they get not only good advice, but advice that does not cost them money unreasonably and does not worry them unnecessarily?

Maria Eagle: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that much excellent free advice is available to all companies, whether they are employers or service providers, on what they need to do to meet their obligations under the changes. Many organisations will offer to charge them for advice, but they should primarily go for the free advice first. Much of the advice is common sense and it is not necessary to pay an enormous amount to get advice that is freely available from the DRC and organisations such as the Employers Forum on Disability, all of which are doing excellent work in that regard. I certainly echo my right hon. Friend's sentiments.

Jonathan Djanogly: Many charities and small voluntary organisations will suffer from the legislation. They work from old buildings and need Government help, which they feel they are not receiving. The Minister just passed the buck. What will the Government do to help those organisations?

Maria Eagle: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman's choice of phrase when he says that those who need to meet their obligations to disabled people are suffering as a result. He should not forget that there are 8.5 million disabled people in this country, all of whom would like access to goods, services, facilities and employment opportunities like anyone else. It is about time they had that right and it is not a matter of people suffering to provide it.
	The hon. Gentleman should also realise that the law requires reasonable adjustment. There is no question of small organisations or those with few resources being put out of business or put to ridiculous expense. The requirement is reasonableness. That is a matter of common sense and proportionality. Ensuring that people get access to services should be proportionate to the resources available to those who are providing them. If approached positively, the requirements will make a massive difference to the ability of disabled people, for too long excluded from opportunities in society, to participate in society. That must be good for the country as a whole.

Identity Cards

James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on his assessment of the possible role of identity cards in combating benefit fraud.

Andrew Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the main case for ID cards is to counter terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration, but it is common sense that they would also be a big help in combating benefit fraud involving false identity.

James Plaskitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We have made useful progress in combating benefit fraud, especially in respect of income support and the jobseeker's allowance, but with millions more national insurance numbers in circulation than there are citizens in the United Kingdom, is it not the case that the more technologically sophisticated proof of identity would help us to make even more progress?

Andrew Smith: Indeed it would. We inherited an enormous problem with the number of national insurance numbers—some 71.5 million, well in excess of the adult population. If we subtract the actual adult population of 47 million, the deceased records of 15.5 million and the 7.2 million who have gone abroad, 1.8 million are left. As the House would rightly expect, we are working intensively, sampling the national insurance records to check their authenticity. That work should be completed by the end of the year. I expect to report further progress to the House early next year.

Steve Webb: The 1997 Labour manifesto estimated the cost of housing benefit fraud alone at £2 billion, suggesting that the total cost of benefit fraud runs into many billions of pounds, yet the Department's evidence is that identity fraud accounts for a tiny fraction of that grand total. Indeed, the Home Secretary said last week in the House that social security fraud was not really what he was talking about when he said that he was cutting down on fraud. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when he says that the measure will be "a big help", the marginal effect of ID cards on social security fraud will be acknowledged as peripheral to the debate on the cards?

Andrew Smith: Yes, the main fraud that we encounter is not people making false claims of identity, but people making false claims regarding their circumstances. However, that does not mean that cracking down on such fraud will not result in substantial savings. Savings derived from checking multiple claims, verifying national insurance numbers, better recording of immigration and emigration, preventing people who are living together committing fraud, and checking documents add up to about £100 million. It speaks volumes of the way in which Liberal Democrats do their costings that £100 million is neither here nor there to them. That is money that could and should be going to schools and hospitals, not to fraud.

Frank Field: As the Secretary of State has, rightly, welcomed ID cards as a potential means of providing a safe entrance into the social security system, may we take it that, when the proposal was discussed in Cabinet, he gave the Home Secretary 100 per cent. support for its introduction?

Andrew Smith: As the House knows, we are united in our dedication to combat terrorism, crime and fraud of all kinds. I have strongly supported the good sense in an incremental approach, which demonstrates how an identity document with biometric data would work, initially with driving licences and passports. Once we have established that the technology works and is viable, the House will be able to make a decision on the question of compulsion in future. To my mind, that is a common-sense way to achieve a desirable goal.

David Ruffley: On 13 February, the National Audit Office stated that the rate of reduction of fraud and error in jobseeker's allowance and income support had "slowed" this year. Can the Secretary of State explain that latest departmental failure?

Andrew Smith: We remain on track to hit our targets to reduce fraud in income support and JSA. The Conservatives ought to note that when they were in government, they did not even have a target to tackle fraud, whereas since 1998, we have cut fraud in IS and JSA alone by more than a quarter. Of course there is more to do, but we will take no lectures from the Opposition on how to do it.

Lawrie Quinn: Given the developing partnership with local government in the fight against benefit fraud, and the increasing mobility of the British population, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Local Government Association and other local government bodies on how the anti-fraud initiative might help them in the front line of dealing with the problem?

Andrew Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are working closely with local authorities. The total number of cases in which action is taken—including prosecution, and the imposition of administrative sanctions and other penalties deployed in combating fraud—is more than double the number in 1997–98. A significant proportion of the increase is accounted for by extra cases and prosecutions brought by local authorities. As well as giving them extra resources, we are keeping in close touch with them on their progress, because the effort has to be a united one involving central Government, local government and all agencies working together to combat an illegal menace that deprives the budget areas that should have priority claim to resources that wrongly go to fraudsters. We have been cracking down jointly with local authorities, and we shall certainly continue to do so.

Pension Credit

Hywel Williams: What steps he has taken to promote the take-up of pension credit in Wales.

Huw Edwards: If he will estimate the number of pensioners in Wales likely to qualify for the pension credit.

Malcolm Wicks: I am pleased to be able to report that 111,000 pensioner households in Wales are already getting pension credit, of which 75,000 now get more than they would have under the minimum income guarantee. We estimate that about 250,000 pensioner households in Wales are eligible for the new credit.

Hywel Williams: Given the level of pensioner poverty in Wales, many Welsh Members are promoting pension credit irrespective of our reservations. Our efforts would be far better directed if we had information on take-up by constituency. Is that information likely to become available?

Malcolm Wicks: It is difficult to give accurate estimates by constituency. I think that on average, across the whole of Great Britain, we are talking about 5,000 or so people in each constituency, but obviously that is subject to quite significant variation. We will have more details by constituency as the take-up of pension credit proceeds. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for pension credit. Whatever our differences of opinion, there are people in our constituencies who need the extra money and we should all endeavour to make sure that they receive it.

Huw Edwards: May I inform my hon. Friend that about 250,000 pensioner households in Wales will greatly welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that they have modest savings, modest occupational pensions or modest earnings, and that they deserve extra help? The Government are giving them that help. Will my hon. Friend say how those with caring responsibilities will also gain from the extra help?

Malcolm Wicks: This is good news for carers because of the pension credit package. One of the ways in which we can help people is through our local pension service, which often works closely with local Members. In Wales, during October alone, we visited more than 2,500 older people, and more than 3,000 have attended outreach events run by the Pension Service. To bring the statistics down to earth, people gaining include a gentleman in Monmouth, my hon. Friend's constituency, who is aged over 80. He called into one of our local surgeries and requested a visit. He is entitled to about £45 a week on pension credit. That is an example of a policy that in practice is benefiting local people.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister will know that because the policy particularly affects the poorest pensioners in my constituency and in every constituency in the land, it is especially to be welcomed. Tribute has already been paid to the Pension Service. However, what measures are we using to reach those who are out of the network of information—for example, those who are contactable through social services within county council services? It is vital that those who do not currently use senior citizens' groups benefit equally from the important measure that the Government have introduced.

Malcolm Wicks: Our first line of communication will be to write to every pensioner in Wales and throughout Great Britain about pension credit. They will all receive the application form, and where appropriate a form will be sent in the Welsh language. That is the service that we offer. In addition, through local advice surgeries, home visits and by working closely with social services, Age Concern and other services, we shall endeavour to inform everyone about their pension credit entitlement.

Employment Trends

John MacDougall: If he will make a statement on long-term trends in employment.

Andrew Smith: The labour market statistics continue to show employment growing and unemployment on a downward trend. As a result of our policies for economic stability and welfare to work the United Kingdom now has the highest employment and the lowest unemployment of the G7.

John MacDougall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response and I congratulate the Government on their great success in reducing unemployment levels to their present levels. I hope that we can continue to improve our performance.
	May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention areas of special need, such as Central Fife, where we had a strong influence in traditional industries and manufacturing industries, which have suffered badly. What special efforts are the Government making to tackle such areas? Can he give a reassurance to the House that we will not return to the days when, under the now Leader of the Opposition, we had the longest continuing increase in unemployment of any—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Andrew Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the sterling work that I know he has done over a number of years in regeneration and tackling unemployment in his constituency. He makes the important point that good though progress is, we need to do still more. It is especially important that we focus on pockets of particular disadvantage and remaining unemployment within each of our constituencies. I can assure my hon. Friend that through the incentive structure within Jobcentre Plus; the partnership work that we are encouraging with local business; and the work that we are doing, for example, through child care partnership managers to ensure that appropriate child care is available to help those who need it to move into jobs, and other area-based initiatives, we shall continue to drive forward. Our ambition is not just to have a better employment system, which is what we have, but to have full employment in every region and every community.

Nigel Evans: Is the Minister not worried about all the manufacturing jobs that are being exported to eastern Europe and Asia? When Black & Decker announced that it was going to the Czech Republic, when Dyson announced that it was going to Malaysia and, more recently, when Wedgwood announced that jobs were going from Stoke-on-Trent to China, were alarm bells not ringing in his Department? What advice is he giving the hard-pressed people who are scouring department stores in this country for gifts that are made in Britain?

Andrew Smith: It never ceases to stagger me that Opposition Members should run down British manufacturing industry and its enormous achievements. This Government have acted, for example, by introducing the research and development tax credit—there was no such encouragement under the Conservatives—and developing a skills strategy. It is only by being competitive in the high value-added areas of manufacturing industry that we will build on the considerable manufacturing success in this country. There have been successes in the aeronautical industry, for example, and success in my own constituency, where BMW is producing new Minis—a sales leader across the world—and taking on more workers. We should hear more from Opposition Members about the success of manufacturing industry instead of hearing them talk Britain down.

David Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lloyds TSB is proposing to close its call centre in Newcastle to exploit low-paid workers in India, with the potential loss of almost 1,000 jobs in my constituency, despite promises made when the centre opened two years ago that those would be long-term, sustainable jobs? What can he do to try to dissuade Lloyds TSB from that course of action, and what does he propose to do in light of the potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs in this country?

Nigel Evans: It is the same question the other way round.

Andrew Smith: I understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents, and I can well imagine local anxieties. However, my answer is the same as the answer that I gave earlier. It is by investing in skills and competitiveness that we can best ensure jobs for the future. I urge employers in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere to keep the promises that they made to local workers and urge Members on both sides of the House to back a strategy of investing in skills so that more people can fill the 10,000 vacancies that are reported to Jobcentre Plus each and every day.
	Economic stability and success are generating jobs in all parts of this country, and unemployment has fallen most in the areas where it was highest. If people face job insecurity, that is worrying, and we must do everything that we can to support them, but it is by equipping people with skills for competitiveness and supporting our competitive industries that we will best ensure employment for the future.

John Wilkinson: Is it not important to secure not just full employment, but productive employment? Over the past three years, the decline in manufacturing employment has been offset by a massive increase in public sector employment. East Germany, Poland and so on always had full employment in the days of the Warsaw pact and COMECON—the Council for Mutual Economic Co-operation—but they were never productive or satisfying places to live.

Andrew Smith: It is an outrageous slur on our nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers—we are proud of the extra numbers employed in those front-line services—to suggest that they are not productive. They are productive, and not only has there been a welcome increase in public sector employment, but there are more jobs in the private sector.

Employment Service (Selby Taskforce)

John Grogan: If he will make a statement about the contribution of the Employment Service to the Selby taskforce.

Des Browne: Jobcentre Plus is a key member of the Selby taskforce, making a positive contribution to its work to help the local community. Working closely with local organisations, Jobcentre Plus has provided advice, guidance, and training to help those made redundant to make the move back into work. I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard to support the efforts of the taskforce, and I am sure that his work, in conjunction with that of the taskforce, is appreciated by those people who have moved into work.

John Grogan: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Mrs. Alison Seabrooke who, incidentally, is married to a Selby man and who, perhaps more than anyone else, has helped co-ordinate the various agencies involved in the Selby taskforce, and helped to ensure that the current mine closure is handled differently from the mine closures that occurred in Yorkshire in the 1980s and 1990s? Does my hon. Friend share my hope that UK Coal and the National Union of Mineworkers will work hard to reach agreement on terms that will allow 260 Selby miners to transfer to nearby Kellingley colliery?

Des Browne: I am more than happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mrs. Seabrooke on her contribution to the efforts of the taskforce. I will pass on to those working closely with Jobcentre Plus my hon. Friend's advice about the opportunities available to Selby miners, to ensure that the best is made of those opportunities.

Pension Credit

Rob Marris: What plans he has to maximise take-up of the pension credit.

Andrew Smith: Pension credit is already making a real difference in the lives of pensioners. As I reported to the House last week, at the end of October there were 1.97 million pensioner households—around 2.3 million individuals—receiving pension credit, and 1.2 million households—around 1.4 million individuals—are now receiving more money than they did before, with an average award of £47.10 per week. Our advertising campaign is continuing and we are working with partner organisations, such as Help the Aged, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, to fulfil our aspiration that as many pensioners as possible should take up their entitlement.

Rob Marris: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that take-up of pension credit is likely to be higher if there is confidence in the assessment and delivery process, and conversely, that if confidence fell, take-up would fall. The computer history of large organisations in the private sector and in the public sector, including the Department, is not always good. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the telephony and the computer systems are robust enough for pension credit?

Andrew Smith: Yes, indeed. We learned the lessons of previous experience in that area, and ensured that the project was not dependent on new IT, that the staff were thoroughly trained, and that the take-up was phased. On telephony, I can report that the average to date is 95 per cent. of calls being answered within 30 seconds, not by a metallic recording machine, but by a human being. Last week the pension credit application line answered 100 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds.

David Willetts: Does the Secretary of State recall his Minister of State, the Minister for Pensions, saying:
	"No one of sound mind could advocate wholesale means-testing"?
	Does the Secretary of State believe that the pension credit, requiring 60 different pieces of information on one's financial circumstances, is not a means test, or does he think that means-testing more than half of the entire population of British pensioners is not wholesale means-testing, or are we driven reluctantly to conclude that the Minister of State thinks the Secretary of State is not of sound mind?

Andrew Smith: As emerged from the pensions debate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues initiated a few weeks ago, the income assessment for pension credit is a million miles away from the old intrusive, demeaning means-testing that disfigured this country in the past. I note that last week the hon. Gentleman was forecasting that it would take six to seven years to reach the 3 million figure. I will make a deal with him. If we are wrong and it takes that long to hit 3 million, I will apologise to the House. If and when we hit our target, as I am confident we will, he should be back in the House explaining why we are right and admitting that the Opposition were wrong.

David Willetts: Let me tell the Secretary of State that we do not do deals. The Government must do the deals. As a matter of arithmetic, at the current rate at which the pension credit is being taken up by new claimants, if he extrapolates that trend, when will he reach his target for the take-up of the pension credit?

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that we must hit 3 million by 2006. I am confident that we are on course and look forward to his coming to the House and apologising when we hit our target.

Dave Watts: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating St. Helens council on recently holding an advice street stall in the town centre at which hundreds of pensioners were helped with the pension credit? Will he encourage more councils to do the same?

Andrew Smith: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his local authority, working in partnership with the Pension Service. Such activities are taking place across the country, because partnership is at the heart of our drive to maximise take-up of the pension credit. It is a pity that the Conservative party does not join in that partnership to encourage the take-up of pension credit. Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) a few minutes ago would have thought that the Conservative party would abandon the pension credit.

Sydney Chapman: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, when the Labour Government came to power, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that one of the Government's central objectives was to get rid of means-testing for the elderly. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer right or wrong, or have the Government done a massive U-turn?

Andrew Smith: I have already pointed out that the pension credit is a million miles away from the old, degrading, intrusive weekly means test. We receive hundreds of messages through the local Pension Service to the effect that pensioners who have successfully applied for pension credit appreciate not only being better off, but the value of the sensitivity and the helpfulness with which the Pension Service has handled their applications. That is amplified not only by those working on the telephone lines, but by the important work of the local Pension Service, which visits people in their homes and helps them to claim their entitlement. Conservative Members should admit that that is not the old-style means test.

New Deal (Young People)

Siobhain McDonagh: If he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal for young people.

Des Browne: The new deal has already helped nearly 450,000 young people into work, including 720 in my hon. Friend's constituency.
	Along with our other welfare-to-work policies, the new deal has helped reduce youth unemployment to around its lowest level since the mid 1970s and has virtually eradicated long-term youth unemployment. The new deal for young people has been a great success. To put that achievement in perspective, I remind hon. Members that between 1990 and 1992, when the current Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Employment, youth unemployment rose by 60 per cent.; since 1997, it has been reduced by 40 per cent.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the scheme's great success in my constituency and others, will he tell the House what work has been done on what the impact might be if it were withdrawn?

Des Browne: I know that my hon. Friend strongly supports the work done by Jobcentre Plus in her constituency. She will know from her experience how many individuals the new deal for young people has helped—it has helped 720 people in her constituency in six years. If she can contemplate 720 people becoming unemployed for 18 months or more in her constituency, it would be a decent measure of what abandoning the new deal for young people would do over the next six years.

George Osborne: The new deal for young people cost taxpayers a third of a billion pounds last year, so we are entitled to ask whether it helps young people. The Employment Service survey found that three out of four new deal options reduce the chance of a young person moving away from the new deal itself or jobseeker's allowance. Is the Minister happy with that?

Des Browne: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Front Bench? I look forward to working with him on the part of the brief for which he is responsible. When he has an opportunity to acquaint himself with more information about the new deal for young people, he will come across independent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which found both that long-term youth unemployment would have been twice as high without the new deal and that a large number of young people left unemployment quicker than they would have done without it. That same institution has produced research showing that the economy as a whole is richer by £500 million a year as a result of the new deal for young people. It is more than justified by those factors alone.

Ian Davidson: While I accept that many young people have indeed been helped by the scheme, many others seem to have disappeared from the system: they neither appear on the records nor are they in work. Is the Minister, like me, worried that they are being deserted by the system?

Des Browne: I hear what my hon. Friend has to say. I know from the interest that he takes in his constituents that he speaks with some degree of knowledge of the labour market in Glasgow. I can reassure him by saying that research shows that approximately the same number of young people go into work from that group as from other groups. Our Department consistently carries out research on the destinations of young people, both on leaving school and from the new deal. The evidence suggests that people leaving to unknown destinations are just as likely to enter jobs as those leaving to known destinations—about 57 per cent. do so.

Pension Service

Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Pension Service.

Malcolm Wicks: The Pension Service is the first ever service dedicated to the needs of elderly people. It operates through a network of 26 pension centres across the country, supported by a local service provided in accessible locations and delivered in partnership with local statutory and voluntary organisations. It has only been operating since April 2002, but we already know from customer and partner feedback that it is making a real difference.

Tim Loughton: The Secretary of State just talked about pensioners who have made successful applications for pension credit as if that should qualify them for a special achievement award. Despite the local field workers in the Pension Service, most pensioners have to rely for advice on the hotline to the call centres, where it is recommended that they should allow at least 20 minutes for their call to be processed. Can the Minister name one other advice line that recommends a minimum of 20 minutes to deal with what should be a straightforward benefit to members of the public, elderly or otherwise?

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman's cynicism about this social policy is a cause for concern. I hope that he does not go around spreading that cynicism in his constituency, because much good work is going on there. People can now choose how to apply for pension credit—by filling in the application form, by ringing the freephone number, by visiting the advice surgery or by having a home visit. That is a great advance. In October alone, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—I am sure he knows this—91 home visits were made, 173 people dropped into local surgeries, and there were 16 surgery appointments. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, seems to say that he is not participating. If he wants to know about the good work on the pension credit in his own constituency, he should get out more.

Nigel Waterson: When I visited the Pension Service in my constituency last Friday, I found its dedicated staff working flat out to try to explain the pension credit to pensioners. Given the Minister's assumption that 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners will not get round to claiming it owing to its complexity and means-testing, why not simply boost the basic pension, which has 100 per cent. take-up, and restore the link with earnings?

Malcolm Wicks: We know that since 1980, members of the Tory party have become born-again earnings linkers—a bit late, methinks. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about the figure of 1.4 million: that is the number of individuals who have already gained from pension credit and are better off. The number will grow and grow. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for our local Pension Service, which comprises a dedicated group of people. However, they will be helped by enthusiasm from local Members of Parliament, not by Conservative Members stirring up apathy about a major social advance.
	If the extra money for pension credit were simply put into increasing the basic pension, some people in all our constituencies would be £30 a week worse off. We make no apologies for helping the poorest among the elderly population.

Child Support Agency

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the new scheme for dealing with Child Support Agency cases.

Chris Pond: The new scheme was introduced for new cases and those connected to a new scheme case in March this year.
	Steady progress is being made, and I am pleased to be able to report that nearly 6,000 of the poorest families are already benefiting from the new child maintenance premium.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly place in the Library a second report on progress in implementing the new child support scheme.

Tony Lloyd: I am sure that the 6,000 beneficiaries will be grateful for the new scheme and that my hon. Friend will confirm that the Government clearly perceive it to be a fairer system. Can my hon. Friend therefore understand the frustration of the many people on the old scheme who feel that they are locked into it, and sometimes pay not only more than they believe to be right but more than their former partners believe to be right? Can he provide a ray of hope to many people that the management system in the CSA will get to grips with the problem and that the new scheme will be rolled out for all those who need it?

Chris Pond: We understand why people are impatient to move to the new scheme, which is fairer, simpler and helps to ensure that children get the support that they need and deserve as effectively as possible. We are making good progress, with the CSA clearing thousands of cases each week, but we have always said that we will transfer existing cases to the new scheme when we are satisfied that it is working well. We shall not make the mistakes of 1993, when the existing scheme was introduced too hurriedly and at considerable cost and heartache both to parents with care, and non-resident parents and to their children.

Paul Goodman: The Under-Secretary will naturally want to be candid with hon. Members about the reasons for the delay in transferring the old cases to the new scheme. Will he confirm or deny the report in this week's Computer Weekly, which claims that up to 40 per cent. of the old records could contain defects, omissions and anomalies; that up to 14 million individual items may need validating, correcting or checking; and that the CSA has
	"no clear solution to its difficulties, no real idea when it will transfer the million cases . . . and has not told the whole truth to Parliament about its affairs"?
	What did the Under-Secretary know about that and when did he find out?

Chris Pond: Well, Mr. Speaker! May I welcome Conservative Members' new-found enthusiasm for this matter? A little more than two weeks ago, we had an opportunity to discuss it in practical terms in Committee. Only one Conservative Member, who stayed for one minute of the proceedings, turned up. Conservative Members were concerned with three letters—not "CSA" but "IDS".
	We are doing what we can to ensure that the new scheme operates effectively. It is working effectively—we are dealing with thousands of cases every week. We know that it is far fairer and simpler than the previous scheme, which the Conservative party was responsible for introducing. We shall ensure that we tackle the problems that we are experiencing with the IT system. The hon. Gentleman knows that those problems have been disappointing for the Government and all other hon. Members. However, we shall ensure that we deal with them. We are working with our partners, Electronic Data Systems—EDS—on that, and we are determined that children get the support that they deserve and need as quickly and effectively as possible.

Ashok Kumar: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). I emphasise that many of my constituents have told me that the CSA has told those on the old system that it will take many years to get on to the new system. Will my hon. Friend consider that seriously and do what he can to speed up the process?

Chris Pond: I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that we will transfer the existing cases as quickly as we can, because we understand the frustration and impatience both of non-resident parents and of parents with care about the need to move quickly—but we shall do so only when we are sure that the system is working effectively. We would be doing no favours to the House, and certainly not to the parents or children involved, if we tried to move forward before we were ready.

Benefits Entitlement (Savings Income)

Vincent Cable: If he will reduce the imputed return on savings in the calculation of benefits entitlement.

Chris Pond: We have already done so in respect of pension credit, for which the tariff income on savings is half that for the minimum income guarantee, which it replaced. We have no plans to change the tariff income on other benefits, but we keep all income and capital rules under review.

Vincent Cable: I accept the Minister's reply, in that the Government have indeed reduced the assumed rate of annual return from the ludicrous level of 20 per cent. However, does the Minister accept the criticisms of the pensions experts who came before the Treasury Committee last week, who said that the current assumed rate of 10 per cent. on savings over £6,000 was totally unrealistic, because no bank offers anything remotely like that, and was a significant disincentive to saving?

Chris Pond: Less than 5 per cent. of customers are assessed as having any tariff income at all, and we must bear in mind that the first tranche of savings is disregarded altogether. The tariff income rules allow people to continue to receive income-based benefit even if they have some savings, rather than their being disqualified outright. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be wrong to disqualify people totally simply because they had some savings. The tariff income rules are a way of phasing out the entitlement to benefit, without pushing people over a cliff edge, but we keep all the rules under review, and will continue to do so.

Unemployment (Nottingham, North)

Graham Allen: When he next plans to visit Nottingham, North to meet jobcentre staff to discuss the number of local unemployed people.

Des Browne: Unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency has fallen by 31 per cent. since 1997. From March next year, Jobcentre Plus will be working with Nottingham city council to co-ordinate a number of local employment projects within the neighbourhood renewal employment strategy, to help even more people into jobs in the future. My hon. Friend will remember that last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told him that he would be happy to visit his constituency, and he knows that he has only to invite him.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend will realise that in 1997, unemployment was the No. 1 issue in my constituency, as in many others. Now it often barely rates a mention—and that is the greatest tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and the rest of the Government, for what they have done since 1997. However, some of the hardest cases still remain. Will my hon. Friend take some time to consider the possibility of the Employment Service and others connected with employment doing more outreach work? In my constituency, individuals in places such as the Bestwood and Broxstowe estates are doing incredibly good work on a one-to-one basis. Will my hon. Friend re-examine this matter and see whether the Employment Service and Jobcentre Plus can be pushed out to where the unemployed are, so that we can crack some of the harder remaining cases?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the Government's achievements on employment. They have not been achieved alone, and a significant number of partners, including local Members of Parliament, have contributed to them. I am aware that last year my hon. Friend corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the other matter that he raised. Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service are developing local partnerships across the country, exactly as my hon. Friend describes in his constituency, and I know that he will be pleased to hear that as part of the jobcentre roll-out, we will offer some of our services in local community surgeries, and from sites shared with local authorities. We are also planning worklessness pilots in some of the most disadvantaged areas throughout the United Kingdom.

Pension Credit

Annabelle Ewing: What recent assessment he has made of the take-up rate of pension credit in Scotland.

Maria Eagle: Pension credit has got off to a good start in Scotland. Already, 155,000 pensioners in Scotland are better off than they were under the old system and, for the first time, people who have saved for their retirement are being rewarded. At the end of October, there were already 202,000 pensioner households in Scotland receiving pension credit.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for that answer. Obviously, however, much still needs to be done to ensure that all pensioners in Scotland receive their entitlement as soon as possible. In that regard, is the Minister concerned by reports that one of the partner organisations in the take-up campaign, Help the Aged, has proposed swingeing and disproportionate cuts to its services in Scotland, including the closure of the Edinburgh office of its free telephone advice service, SeniorLine? Surely that is likely to have a negative impact on take-up in Scotland.

Maria Eagle: I am always concerned to hear about organisations that do good work, such as Age Concern, having that kind of difficulty. I hope, though, that the hon. Lady will be able to step into the breach and start to encourage pensioners in Perth to claim their entitlement. If she did so, far more people would claim. I hope that she will be able to do that, even though her party opposed the pension credit.

John Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend and her Department on the work that they are doing. Will she assure me and the elderly people of Anniesland that, even when we reach the June deadline for contacting people, we will not stop there, and that we will not be satisfied until every pensioner is getting what they are due?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is well known for the work that he does in this area, particularly on encouraging pensioners to take up their entitlement. I am sure that he will not stop doing so come next June. It is certainly our intention that everybody who is entitled to pension credit should take up that entitlement, and the Pension Service—particularly the local service—will continue its effort to ensure that as many people as possible, and preferably all those who are entitled, take up their entitlement.

Hospital Patients (Benefit Payments)

David Taylor: How many people in receipt of benefit have been in NHS hospitals for more than a year.

Chris Pond: The latest information is that there are, at any one time, between 20,000 and 25,000 people on benefit who have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks. In May this year, we extended the period before benefits are reduced as a result of a stay in hospital from six to 52 weeks.

David Taylor: Almost 9,000 people with mental ill health in England and Wales have been in hospital for more than a year. Given that benefit cuts at that point can be demonstrated to be anti-therapeutic, and can therefore lengthen the stay in hospital, is it not right, in medical, moral and monetary terms, to push that 52 week limit even further, perhaps to something approaching two years? The cost would not be great, the Chancellor is listening, and this is the time of year to do it.

Chris Pond: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and also to Mind and the other mental health charities that have argued this case. My hon. Friend will recognise, however, that 97 per cent. of hospital in-patients leave hospital within six weeks, and so would not even have been affected by the pre-May 2003 rules. Our recent change means that even more people will see no reduction in their benefit while they are in hospital, but I think that my hon. Friend would agree that we have to draw the line somewhere, and that it is right in principle that social security benefits should not be paid in full indefinitely when someone is in an NHS hospital and therefore getting their day-to-day living expenses met. However, this is an issue that we shall keep under review.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman referred to those who have been in hospital and are over a certain age, many of whom will be elderly and mentally infirm patients. What provisions has his Department made to ensure that checks on those eligible for pension credit have been made? Also, could his hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions possibly find the time to respond to the question that I put to him a month ago? He said that he would reply if I wrote to him; I have written, but I am still waiting for a reply.

Chris Pond: I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a reply, and I apologise if there has been a delay. We estimate that, at any one time, about 20,000 pensioners and 3,000 income support recipients aged under 60 are benefiting from the May 2003 change to which I referred. We want to ensure that those who are in hospital long term receive the benefits to which they are entitled. I will certainly give the hon. Lady my assurance that we will continue to do that.

New Deal (Young People)

Edward Leigh: Pursuant to the Government's response to the 62nd report of the Public Accounts Committee, Session 2001–02, on the new deal for young people, how the Government will track the progress of those who have left the new deal for young people and moved into employment.

Des Browne: Consistent with the Department's response to the Public Accounts Committee report, we are working with the Inland Revenue to link our records with theirs where possible. That work will improve our understanding of what happens in the long term to people who leave our programmes, such as the new deal for young people. We are also conducting separate work to identify immediate destinations of people on leaving the new deal for young people.
	Those are just part of our extensive programme of research evaluating our welfare-to-work programmes. That research both measures the success of our programmes and identifies areas for further improvement.

Edward Leigh: As the Minister has explained, the Employment Act 2002 gives his Department the chance to access all the Inland Revenue records of all those who have been on new deal so that we can check exactly what is happening to their employment. Is the Department doing that and trying to track all those who have been on the new deal, and what has it learned from that analysis about the sustainability of their employment and about their earnings? If it is not doing so, that will add credence to the charge made by the Minister's colleague the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), that many people are simply vanishing from the system.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we are of course undertaking such checks. I repeat that we are working with the Inland Revenue to link our records with theirs where possible. We will report to the House once that work is concluded, or when we are in a position to draw conclusions from it.

Potato Ring Rot (Wales)

Bill Wiggin: (urgent question): To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outbreak of potato ring rot at Bwlch and what discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the National Assembly for Wales to prevent its spread to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Don Touhig: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. He has served on the Welsh Affairs Committee and on the Welsh Grand Committee. He does not represent a Welsh seat, but his constituency is a part of the country that has been contested by our two nations for some time.
	Ministers and officials at the Wales Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the National Assembly have been in discussions since we first became aware of the ring rot outbreak at Bwlch last Wednesday, 12 November. The infected potatoes were discovered during a routine annual inspection conducted by the plant health and seeds inspectorate on behalf of the National Assembly. We believe that the potatoes were grown from seed imported from the Netherlands in 2002 and planted in Wales earlier this year. The Assembly and DEFRA acted swiftly. The first priority was to contain the disease at Middlewood farm and assess the risk that it might spread.
	Assembly officials visited the farm immediately they were notified of the outbreak to assess the situation. Equipment and machinery on the site were disinfected and sterilised, and the farmer, Mr. John Morgan, who is a seed potato farmer of international reputation, fully co-operated with the public health authorities. To our knowledge, this is the first outbreak of potato ring rot in the UK, and it is a credit to the systems that we have in place that the disease was identified during a routine check.
	We are following very strict guidelines agreed in the European Union, and further tests are being conducted on the potatoes at Bwlch. Those tests will take some time to complete.

Bill Wiggin: Can the Minister explain how this bacterial infection, which is one of the world's most damaging potato diseases, was able to get into Wales? How was the disease able to get past the checks in the Netherlands and in the UK just two years after the devastating foot and mouth crisis? Despite the Government's assurances following foot and mouth, they have failed to provide adequate checks and safeguards to protect the UK farming industry. Why is it that not every batch of imported stock is tested? Should not the Government already have put in place extra surveillance of meat and agricultural imports to prevent our domestic agriculture from being affected by foreign diseases? Will they tighten security for imports on a disease basis?
	What about Mr. Morgan? He has complied with the Government, as the Minister said, and done everything he can to ensure that the outbreak remains in his potato sheds. He has been let down by the security system. Can he expect some compensation for the loss of his business? He will be unable to grow potatoes again for at least four years. Like me, he is deeply concerned about the impact on tourism and the cost to the community. Can the Minister assure the House that Mr. Morgan is the victim, not the villain?
	What extra resources are the Government putting in place towards plant security, or does the Minister think that enough is already being done? Is he aware that ring rot bacteria can survive for two years in dry conditions? However, is it right that, unbelievably, Mr. Morgan is allowed to sell his potatoes for consumption? It is only his resolve to protect the national industry, and the fact that he has to live with himself, that prevents him from using that route to recoup some of his losses. I hope that the Minister will consider that before ruling out helping this farmer.
	What actions have been taken to prevent the disease from spreading? Is there an action plan? Does it take local knowledge into account? How much co-operation is required from potato farmers? How many potato farmers are there in Wales, and has the Minister estimated the size of losses to people throughout the United Kingdom if he fails to control the disease? Has he not learned the lesson of foot and mouth, for example? I hope he has sufficient stocks of everything he needs.
	It is known that the infected farm may have supplied seed potatoes to other farms. What steps are being taken to ensure that the seeds are not sown, and that the bacteria are dealt with properly? What assessment have the Government made of the economic consequences of the outbreak for the potato sector? Have the Dutch authorities been contacted to establish where else in the UK seeds of the same origin have gone? Finally, will the Government confirm that they will do more to prevent the disease from reaching Britain?

Don Touhig: As far as we are aware, Mr. Morgan has acted perfectly properly throughout the whole business. As I have said, he is a farmer of international repute, and I have nothing but praise for his response to the problem that he discovered.
	Our own response should be measured and determined. We were right to act immediately to isolate the bacterium, but—I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman did this—we must not imply that this problem is on the same scale as problems that have hit our farming industry before. Farming has gone through a pretty tough time. It is in all our interests to act responsibly, in order to protect the long-term interests of our farmers and rural communities.
	No compensation schemes currently exist, although there may well be discussions between the farming unions and various Departments on whether compensation is possible. My colleague the Assembly Health Minister is due to make a statement tomorrow. We have been in touch with the Dutch authorities: indeed, my colleague at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), raised the matter with a Dutch Minister at a meeting in Brussels this morning.
	There have been some movements of potatoes from the farm in question, but they have been traced, and action has been taken to ensure that they are not taken anywhere else. They are being examined and tested. As for the economic consequences of the outbreak, I am afraid that it is not possible to make a proper assessment at this stage; but there will clearly have to be one, especially in view of Mr. Morgan's specific difficulties. As for the implications for potato farmers throughout Wales, there are six seed potato growers in Wales, and many other farmers are involved in producing potatoes. All those factors will have to be taken into account when the Government decide on a longer-term response.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about protecting our country from any import of the seeds. No imports from non-EU countries are allowed, and there is an arrangement for proper checks and inspections of those from EU countries. There is a problem with ring rot in a number of European countries: it has recently been discovered in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and France, as well as parts of north America. As far as we know, this is the first outbreak in this country, although the bacterium was discovered in the late 1800s. I think that our response has been appropriate, but it will take six to eight weeks for us to assess the damage caused to the crop.

Paul Flynn: I join others in welcoming the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) to his position as Opposition spokesman on Wales. His appointment is in the Tory tradition of appointing alien governors-general for Wales. However, I regret his comparison with foot and mouth disease, which has also been made in the press. It is ludicrous to compare this disease, which can and probably will be contained, with a virulently infectious disease such as foot and mouth. The comparison is not only untrue and inaccurate but extremely damaging. Many people have suggested that there is already a reluctance to book holidays or arrange other tourism activities in the Brecon area, and there have even been some cancellations, because of exaggerated press reports. While we should of course take this matter seriously, should we not also ensure that our comments are restrained and measured?

Don Touhig: I agree with that final point. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Leominster, it is important that our response be proper, well thought out and careful. I fear that we are in danger of over-hyping this issue, although I do not think that anyone would want to diminish its importance and seriousness.
	I saw press reports over the weekend suggesting that this is the arable form of foot and mouth. We do not accept that at all. My hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) spoke to me only today about discussions he had with the National Farmers Union in his area over the weekend. It too is concerned that, if our reaction to the disease gets out of hand, people will think it is a huge problem. That would have a huge detrimental effect on our farming industry and on the countryside. We do not want that to happen, so our response must be measured, proper and appropriate to the difficulty.

Sue Doughty: First, I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who normally deals with these issues.
	The outbreak is a serious issue and it is important that we take it seriously, but I am concerned that we do not whip up the whole issue into a frenzy that will affect tourism in Wales and the farming industry not only in Wales but in other parts of Britain. I would like it confirmed that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will not allow the media to whip up the issue into the same problem that we had over foot and mouth.
	I seek an assurance that the consignment is fully traceable. What advice can the Minister give about the liability of the original supplier, and what assurance can he give that the burden will not fall on the importers or growers, who, as we have heard, have acted perfectly correctly? We have concerns about the suppliers. What responsibility does DEFRA have for the quality of the inspections by plant health inspectors? How is the number of tests arrived at? Tests led to the discovery of the outbreak. Would more tests have led to the discovery sooner?
	Britain had the advantage of having disease-free status. What resources does DEFRA have, once we have contained and sorted out this problem, to regain that status, which is so important for our agricultural export industry? In many other European countriesFrance, Holland, Spain and Denmarkcompensation arrangements are in place. What assessment will the Secretary of State make of parallel schemes that could be adopted for use in this situation? We now understand that at least three farms in west Cornwall and in the Isles of Scilly received consignments of potatoes from the original farm in Wales. Can the Minister tell us how many farms received those consignments?

Don Touhig: On the last point, my advice is that four consignments left the farm. The recipients have been contacted and movement restrictions have been put in place in respect of those seed potatoes. I can only refer the hon. Lady to the point that I made earlier on compensation. There is no scheme at present, but I have no doubt that the farming unions and Mr. Morgan in particular will want to make representations at some stage. Ministers will obviously have to take account of that.
	It is important that we recognise that the system that we have in place is working and is appropriatean annual routine inspection discovered the outbreak. It is important that we recognise that that annual inspection is operating throughout the European Union, and it has proved to be effective in this case. It is important, as the hon. Lady says, that we in no way harm our farming community more than it has been harmed in recent years, by giving the impression that this is of the scale of the problems that the industry has faced in most recent times.
	It is important that we do a proper assessment, which will take some weeks, of the extent of the outbreak. It is right to state that it needs to be properly assessed. The bacteria can exist for perhaps four or five seasons, in sacking, in barns and so forth. That is why we need to disinfect and to sterilise the places where these particular potatoes were stored. We are taking appropriate measures. Possibly my Cardiff colleague the Assembly Minister will have some further information when he makes his statement tomorrow.

Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend will recognise that, without being selfish, those in the agricultural community in the Lothians, who send their considerable condolences to Welsh colleagues, are greatly concerned about the outbreak in Wales, because theirs is one of the major seed-producing areas of Europe. What does he think of the suggestion, of which I have given him notice, made by James Withers on behalf of the Scottish NFU that the Scots should use only Scottish seed for the moment, that high health regions should be introduced, and that imports of seed from Holland, Germany and Denmark should be at least considered and possibly forbidden? Does he agree with the Scottish NFU that the European Union ought to consider disease-free areas?

Don Touhig: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of that question earlier today. Of course, in Scotland, there already exists a voluntary ban on importing seeds from the Netherlands, although that is not because of any case of ring rot in Scotland. The EU has protected area status for some diseases, and it is up to individual member states to prove that they are disease-free. Such status does not exist for ring rot at this time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be interested in my hon. Friend's remarks, and I will certainly ensure that his remarks are brought to her attention.

Robert Walter: I want to take issue with the Minister's last remarks, because restrictions in regard to ring rot are in place. If he looks at the DEFRA website, he will see that there are restrictions on potato imports from Germany. That site also says that ring rot is prevalent in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands, but we have had no restrictions on potatoes coming from the Netherlands since 1997. Given that Germany is next door to the Netherlands and we have restrictions on German imports, why have the Government not seen fit to place restrictions on imports from the Netherlands?

Don Touhig: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the points that I made earlier on how we have responded to this outbreak. I cannot, in fact, tell him that it would have been appropriate to place restrictions on imports from the Netherlands. It is for my colleagues at DEFRA to make a proper assessment. I have no doubt that they will take account of his remarks, and if appropriate action is needed, I am sure it will follow.

Kevin Brennan: May I tell my hon. Friend that, if any more compensation is to be handed out by the Government, there are greater priorities than thisfor example, the Allied Steel and Wire workers? If more retrospective compensation is to be paid to the agricultural industry, which already receives massive public subsidy, does he agree that other priorities should be considered first?

Don Touhig: I am well aware that my hon. Friend and others campaign on behalf of the workers at Allied Steel and Wire, and I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have great sympathy with them, especially in light of the problems with their pensions. I can only tell my hon. Friend that no such compensation scheme exists at present. The Government are not suggesting that there should be such a schemeI have simply indicated that I have no doubt that others will raise the issue in the coming weeks.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister said earlier that the annual inspection regime works. Well, self-evidently that is not the case, or there would not have been this outbreak. May I urge on him the need to look again at the imported material and to speak to members of the other Governments, because the problem is rife in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Greece? Should there not be a general moratorium until such time as we are confident that inspection procedures are equally good on the other side of the English channel? I do not say that as an anti-European personI am not a Euroscepticbut it is high time we took on the problem and dealt with it urgently. With respect to what the Minister said about containing the problem in Bwlch, the Government have got that part right, and I congratulate them on that.

Don Touhig: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his final remarks. It is good to see that we are at one on this approach. I know of his keen interest in rural matters, given the constituency that he represents, and we do not want this to get out of hand in terms of the public being afraid to come into the countryside or its being suggested that this is a greater problem than it is. I can confirm that the disease is found in north America, Canada, parts of the former Soviet Union, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands. To date, as far as I am aware, the Government have not considered banning the importation of seeds from those countries, but I have no doubt that, having read the Hansard report of today's urgent question, colleagues at DEFRA will consider the matter.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister has told us that the source of this problem is imported seed potato from the Netherlands. To his knowledge, what steps are the Dutch authorities taking to address the problem on that farm of origin? What steps are the British Government taking to ensure that no disease is lurking in UK farms that may also have received imports from the affected farm in the Netherlands?

Don Touhig: We have been in touch with the Dutch authorities on this matter to trace the supplier of this particular seed. My DEFRA colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, raised the matter with his Dutch counterpart this morning, and ongoing discussions will take place on the matters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, to determine whether other steps are needed and are appropriate. I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman any more up-to-date information at present, but I am sure that this matter will figure in DEFRA questions later this week, and that the Secretary of State and her Ministers will have more to say about it.

David Heath: I commend the Minister on the steps that have been taken to contain the present outbreak. Does he agree, however, that dealing effectively with potential epidemics of both animal and plant diseases require a robust and regularly reviewed contingency plan? Can he tell me when the contingency plan for potato diseases was last reviewed and whether he will place a copy in the Library?

Don Touhig: He's got me on that one, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that, but I will certainly make inquiries, write to him and place a copy in the Library.

Nigel Evans: The potato crop is important not just for Wales but for the entire United Kingdom, with many millions of pounds' worth of potatoes being sold. We very much hope that the disease has been contained to this particular farm, but the Minister has mentioned a number of other countries in addition to Holland where this disease lurks. Indeed, I suspect that it is not only from Holland that we import potato seed. What extra action are the Government taking to ensure that any potato seeds coming from any other European Union countries, Russia, the Czech Republic, or other countries that he has mentioned, such as Canada, are not bringing the disease into the United Kingdom?

Don Touhig: I have no doubt that my colleagues at DEFRA have been reviewing the matter, and as I have said in answer to other questions, we will clearly be looking at imports of seeds from the countries where this disease is prevalent and where there have been recent outbreaks, in mainland Europe, north America and elsewhere. I have no doubt that at some stage that will lead to a review of whether we need to take action to prevent the importation of those seeds, and I am sure that the Government will then take the appropriate action.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I start by declaring my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as a potato grower? The DEFRA website on 29 April 2003 said:
	Potato ring rot is a highly contagious disease of potatoes, which is not present in the UK. If it were to be introduced, successful eradication would be very difficult, and losses would arise through lower yields, compliance with control measures, and reduced exports. Following interceptions of this disease on potatoes from Germany, the Potatoes Originating in Germany (Notification) (England) Order 2001 was introduced in October 2001, to enable the PHSI to monitor trade from this source and target inspections more effectively.
	Can the Minister have urgent discussions with his colleagues at DEFRA to ensure that that order is now extended to Holland and to any other source countries where the disease is likely to be present? Can he also comment on the 2,500 inspections of potato seed each year? Are those adequate, and will he again have discussions with his colleagues on that? Finally, we should not overstate the danger of this disease: it poses no danger whatever to the public, they may continue to eat potatoes perfectly safelyand my potatoes grown in Norfolk are some of the best.

Don Touhig: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman declared an interest in the matter. I will ensure that the Hansard report of today's question is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because several issues have been raised to which it would be more appropriate for a Minister from her Department to respond.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I shall ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of my colleagues, and we shall take whatever steps are appropriate in view of the difficulties that we face. It is important that we do not overstate the difficulty at the present time. Let us do the assessment and take the appropriate action because, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, it is important to note that the situation is isolated. We did the right thing at the beginning and we need to continue to do that.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a scale of one to 10, with 10 being very serious, how serious is the outbreak?

Don Touhig: To answer that question would perhaps lend weight to those who are trying to suggest that the problem is greater for our country than it is, and I would not wish to take that course. The matter is serious, and it is appropriate that we respond seriously. In view of the huge problems that this country's farming community has faced in recent years, I do not think that any hon. Member wants to do anything more to harm or cause grief to farmers and their families.

Point of Order

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it will not have escaped your attention that, as we speak, the Minister for Children is making a personal statement outside the House. You will recall from exchanges during business questions last week and on a previous point of order that many people in the House believe that the Minister should make a statement here, especially bearing it in mind that she traduced the whistleblower in the Islington child abuse case by suggesting that he was mentally unstable. Is there any way in which you can protect our interests and ensure that Ministers make statements inside the House from the Dispatch Box, and not outside to the media?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the right hon. Lady is making a statement that has nothing to do with parliamentary proceedings. It is a matter outside the House about which she is making a statement.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister for Children is saying anything that has any bearing on her ministerial responsibilities, surely that would rightly be a matter for the House. Is that not something to which the House may wish to return tomorrow, when we might want an early opportunity to hold the Minister to account here for her ministerial responsibilities, however widely that might be construed?

Mr. Speaker: We have just been speaking about farming matters. The farmers in Scotland often say that the cares of tomorrow are for a day still to come. We will worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. [Interruption.] I was not giving the right hon. Gentleman any encouragement whateverit was the opposite, actually.

Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Courts Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th June 2003
	Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any question put.
	3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.[Margaret Moran.]
	The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 123.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Orders of the Day

Courts Bill

Lords message considered.

After Schedule 5

Lords amendment: No. 24A to Commons amendment No. 24.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 24B to 24D.

Christopher Leslie: The Government tabled substantial amendments in Committee to the fine enforcement provisions. Those amendments were widely welcomed and demonstrated the Government's strong commitment to improving enforcement of fines across the country.
	The amendments from the other place make small changes to the new schedule that this place added in Committee in relation to the discharge of fines by unpaid work. Amendments Nos. 24A, B and C are drafting amendments and remove redundant references to parts of schedule 6, for which there is no need. I am grateful to their lordships for taking the opportunity to agree to that drafting improvement.
	The fourth amendment, No. 24D, subjects the regulations setting the hourly rate for converting a fine into unpaid work to affirmative resolution, rather than to the negative procedure provided for in the Bill as drafted. That reflects the Government's acceptance of the recommendation in paragraph 4 of the 26th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Hon. Members often prefer powers to be taken by positive resolution, as that allows for greater scrutiny, so I hope that the House will welcome the small but important change that the Government have agreed to.

Nick Hawkins: As the Minister explained, the discharge of fines was debated in another place. We also had, as he will recall, quite a lot of discussion in Committee of fines and the scandal that many fines imposed by the courts are not collected. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who shares my shadow Home Office responsibilities and also serves as a recorder and district judge, has expressed concern to the House on many occasions about the large number of fines that are not collected from offenders. It is therefore a good thing that the Government are going to pay greater attention to fines.
	It will also be beneficial for the rate at which fines can be discharged by unpaid work if the affirmative rather than the negative procedure is adopted. As the Minister rightly said, Conservative Members have regularly called for such a procedure, not only for this Bill but for many other measures. My noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns had discussions about this matter with Ministers in another place, and we have made it clear that we would strongly prefer the rates to be set by affirmative resolution. We were therefore delighted that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made the same recommendation, and we are pleased that the Government agree with us about that, in addition to other significant concessions that we discussed on Report and Third Reading and which the Government have made.
	I welcome not only the three drafting changes that the Minister mentioned but the substantial concession that the affirmative procedure will be adopted if changes are made in future. I do not doubt, as I said on Report and Third Reading, that the amendment is a further change that proves that Parliament has done its job in both Houses, and the Bill is a great deal better than it was when the Government originally introduced it.

David Heath: It is always dangerous to say so, but I suspect that we may not use all the time allocated for debate on the amendments, as they are entirely welcome. That is particularly true of amendment No. 24D because, as the Minister pointed out, it provides for the use of affirmative resolution in the setting of rates, for which we, along with Conservative Members, argued in Committee and elsewhere. Such powers are an important part of secondary legislation. I still have concerns, as the Minister knows, about the level at which rates are set, but I will have an opportunity to debate that with him when the orders are laid, and I look forward to doing so at the earliest opportunity.
	The three drafting amendments suggest the perils of amendments not receiving proper scrutiny if they are introduced at a late stage in proceedings on a Bill. Clearly there must have been a word-processing problem that allowed references to parts of schedule 6 to remain, or there may have been an alternative schedule to the Bill orwho knows?another Bill has been truncated and modified to fit the legislation. Either way, it would have been better, as I think the Minister accepts, if the change had been introduced earlier, so that it could have had the benefit of proper consideration in Committee. The proposals were effectively rubber-stamped in the House and in the other place, and there was no debate on the content of the amendment. Had it not been for sharp-eyed draftsmen in the Department, the error would not have been noticed in time to be corrected before the Bill completed its passage. Once we remove references to parts of schedule 6 and the redundant title of part 1, we will have a better Bill, and I certainly do not intend to oppose the amendments.

Graham Allen: I know that the Minister is anxious to join up parts of Government in the criminal justice system. Will he bear in mind the probation service, young offenders teams and the community by ensuring that it is possible for the community to make suggestions for the unpaid work to be done by people who have committed offences? That applies not just to community service but to unpaid work as proposed in the new schedule, which may include tasks such as cleaning up verges in the countryside. From speaking to the probation service, I know that reasons are foundnot least because of guidance issued by the Governmentnot to have such work done by people who are on probation. It is often difficult to have such work done by people on young offenders teams who are under the relevant age.

David Heath: I do not want to prolong the debate, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that we debated these matters during proceedings on both the Criminal Justice Bill and the Courts Bill. He is on to an important point. If any form of community sentencing is to be seen as a viable alternative, it must be visible to the communities affected by the original offences. I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's views.

Graham Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. Such visibility is important for the community. I am not proposing that unpaid work, whatever form it takes in the criminal justice system, should be only punitive because there is a need for rehabilitative work as well. In afflicted communities such as mine, which includes many outer-city estates, appropriate work, such as cleaning up graffiti or filth and litter, which sadly blight our communities, would be seen as relevant punishment, even if it is only part of the sentence or part of the unpaid work. I underline the need for a balance between the punitive and the rehabilitative. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that with his colleagues in the Solicitor-General's office and the Home Office.

Christopher Leslie: That short but perfectly formed debate covered a number of useful points. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) urged the Government to bear in mind the need to join up all aspects of the criminal justice system and to reflect the needs of local communities and neighbourhoods in any voluntary activity undertaken as part of the unpaid work programme. Clearly, we must engage not just probation and young offenders teams but the voluntary organisations to which we will look to supervise some of the unpaid work in those petty session areas in which we intend to pilot the programme. We need visible justice, and such unpaid work must be useful to the neighbourhoods that are affected by crime.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) rightly stressed that fine enforcement must be a continuing and constant priority. We agree that revenue collection is not the only issue, but it is critical for the justice system to prove that when the magistrates bench or any other court issues a fine as a punishment, it must be carried through. We will not tolerate default.
	I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the affirmative procedure for setting the hourly rate for the unpaid discharge of fines. The affirmative procedure will also give opportunities to debate some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who asked about the rate, which we are still considering but which is likely to be no less than equivalent to the national minimum wage. I apologise for the drafting improvements that are now required but we are, at least, taking the opportunity to correct the Bill.
	There is no need to take up any more time. It is pleasing that there is consensus on these important matters at the final stage of the Bill.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 24B to 24D agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill (the Act), it is expedient to authorise the payment of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.
	The motion relates to some welcome Lords amendments to the Bill that would create a new procedure for dealing with complaints about high hedges. The motion is necessary to plug a gap in the original money resolution relating to the Bill, which was agreed by the House on 8 April. The costs associated with the high hedges provisions were fully debated on 7 April, when the House considered and agreed the money resolution relating to the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). We are delighted to have found a suitable vehicle to introduce those measures, which enjoy strong support across the House, but as the issues relating to the money resolution have been debated on a number of occasions, I shall not detain the House any further. I commend the motion to the House.

Eric Forth: That is all very well, but it does not cover the potential consequences of the money resolution. Since we never see the details of money resolutions, the Minister is asking us to sign a blank cheque, which is what such resolutions always amount to, so it is worth pausing to explore the implications of where we are and where we might be going.
	One oddity of the procedure that has always puzzled me is that we are being asked to approve a motion stating
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill
	let us note that it refers to any Act rather than to a specific one
	it is expedient to authorise the payment of money . . . of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.
	That is asking rather a lot of the House. At this stage in the proceedings, we, the supposed custodians of taxpayer's money, are being asked to say, Yes, we will sign up to that form of words, relating to any Act and any expenses, and without any knowledge of what they may be.
	Although the Minister has highlighted a particular part of the Bill, which I will deal with in a moment, I have quickly perused the Lords amendments that we are about to consider. I make that point because one of our difficulties is that we do not really knowthe Minister did not tell uswhether the money resolution purports to cover the assumed expenditure under the previous working of the Bill or whether the Government have attempted to take into account the financial implications of the Lords amendments, which have yet to be considered and agreed by the House. That puts us in a rather odd position. We do not know whether the House will agree to the substantive and substantial Lords amendments that follow this motion on the Order Paper.
	Here is the position: we are being asked to sign up to a motion authorising the expenditure of unspecified moneys, and the Minister has told us in her charming way that it is all to do with high hedges, but I wonder whether that is the whole story. I have glanced through the Lords amendments, and I think I have picked up considerable implications for the courts, local authorities, the Secretary of State, the police, waste authorities and something called the appeal authority, which I may return to in a moment.
	The array of potential costs is substantial, and this question arises immediately: are we being asked to assume that all those different institutions will absorb into their existing financial structures the undoubted additional costs that the Lords amendments would impose if we approved them, or will the Secretary of State give more money to each of those institutions in order to offset the additional costs that may or may not be incurred if we agree to the amendments?
	We can already see that an awful lot of conditionality is involved here. Nothing is certainnothing has been clearly laid before the Houseso we are being asked collectively, as the custodians of taxpayers' money, to sign up to a whole series of conditional propositions to which we know none of the answers. I might even go so far as to say that it would have been better had we considered the money resolution after the Lords amendments, because we might have had a rather clearer idea of what we are supposed to be financing.

Graham Allen: Did the right hon. Gentleman make any of those proposals when he was shadow Leader of the House?

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman perceptively puts his finger on the fact that now, as I glory in the freedom of the Back Benches, I am able more thoroughly to explore what is put before the House. When I was constrained by my responsibilities as shadow Leader of the House and by collective responsibility, I left that to others. If the hon. Gentleman did not do it, he should explain why not; but I do not have to explain myself. I invite the hon. Gentleman to participate in these proceedings as a good parliamentarian: he may seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I have completed my analysis, which has barely started. I look forward to his contribution. He is obviously very keen to participate in matters relating to money resolutions: I welcome that. Perhaps he and I can form an informal partnershiplinking arms, as it were, across the Chamber to hold the Government to account on money resolutions and many other matters.
	As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman enabled me to make those remarks, let us look at one or two of the provisions that have the potential to affect the money resolution in ways as yet unspecified by the Minister. Amendment No. 1 to clause 13 suggests replacing the words residing in with
	with a right (of whatever description) to reside in or occupy.
	To my mind, that immediately hints at a considerable broadening of the scope of the clause. That continues in amendment No. 2, which refers to
	a person with a right (of whatever description) to reside in or occupy other housing accommodation.
	Such a broadening of the provisions has a potential impact on court costs. It is self-evident that introducing the potential for more cases to be brought before the courts must have cost implications. The money resolution does not tell us whether the courts will be expected to bear those costs from within their own budgets or whether there are implications for the Secretary of State's budget. One way or another, of course, it all comes back to the taxpayer. Sadly, that is a given in this placeit is always the hapless taxpayer who picks up the bill. Our concern should be to dig underneath that to try to identify whether the additional tax burden falls on the taxpayer through the court budget, per sewhich implies that another part of courts' activities will have to sufferor through the Secretary of State's coming forward to give more money to the courts to recompense them for their additional responsibilities as a result of the amendment, were we to agree to it.
	I do not apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the degree of conditionality in my remarks. I think that it is legitimate for me to link the money resolution, which is before us without detail or specification, and the following businessour consideration of the Lords amendmentsbecause the amendments have cost impacts

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will be out of order if he goes into those: he must address his remarks to the money resolution.

Eric Forth: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind hon. Members that the money resolution says that
	for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill . . . it is expedient to authorise the payment of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State.
	I am trying to tease out the extent to which the Secretary of State will have to provide those expenses and the way in which he or she will be obliged to do so. I am unclear as to the exact link between the Secretary of State, who is specifically referred to in the money resolution, and the institutions that are inevitably drawn in by the Bill and the amendments. Local authority costs frequently occur. There is a direct implication of costs in references to guidance by the Secretary of State. One could argue that a Secretary of State can issue guidance cost free because the gigantic bureaucracy of any Department can produce and distribute guidance without additional cost. I query that because I have always believed that simply assuming that bureaucracy can costlessly provide an additional product, in this case guidance, implies either sleight of hand and even dishonesty or poor management. Nothing in life and certainly nothing in Government should be cost free. One should be able to account for everything, even something as apparently simple as issuing guidance. If that cannot happen in a money resolution, where can it occur?
	Clause 61 has clear implications for police costs. Again, an additional responsibility has been placed on

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the original money resolution to the Bill was agreed after Second Reading on 8 April.

Eric Forth: I am aware of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but may I invite you to follow my logic? Surely the Lords amendments that we are about to consider may materially affect the Bill. If you can tell me that if we agree the Lords amendments, the Government will have to introduce a further money resolution to take account of them, that part of my case will be satisfactorily laid to rest.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point, the money resolution relates only to the high hedges provisions, and nothing else in the amendments.

Eric Forth: That is an interesting ruling, which I accept, but it does not answer my other question. If a previous money resolution gave effect to the original Bill and if we subsequently agreed Lords amendments that would materially affect the contents, at what stage would the House of Commons be invited to agree a further money resolution to take account of the alterations?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can clarify the position. The money resolution that we are currently debating relates merely to the provision for appeals to the Secretary of State against enforcement notices on high hedges.

Eric Forth: With respect, that does not answer my question, which I hope you will accept as legitimate, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have given an assurance that a prior money resolution related to the previous form of the Bill. You now tell us that the money resolution simply reflects the potential cost implications of the part of the measure that deals with high hedges, with which I shall deal in a moment. However, that leaves unanswered an interesting question. Were we later to agree to several Lords amendments, which, in my view have clear cost implications, would not that necessitate a further money resolution? That puzzles me, and I am happy to see that you are about to help me.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Again, if it will assist the right hon. Gentleman, I make it clear that if what he outlines had been the case, further money resolutions would have been tabled to cover the point.

Eric Forth: The helpful implication is therefore that the Government want to argue that the Lords amendments have no money implications. I shall ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to take full account of that. If it turns out that any additional burdens on the taxpayer arise from the Lords amendments, I hope that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office will want to examine that closely.
	If, as appears to be the case, we are being told, by implication if not explicitly, that the Government have not seen fit to table a further supplementary money resolution to allow for the possible cost implications of the Lords amendments, I shall rest content with that for the moment. I simply flag up for the Minister the fact that she had better be very careful about the expenditures in her Departmentand, perhaps, in other Departments and institutionsbecause we are apparently being reassured that there will be no cost implications for the courts, the police, the waste authorities or any of the others that I listed earlier. I am rather reassured by that, but frankly, I shall believe it when I see it.

Michael Fallon: Are we not caught between the clarity of Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling and the ambiguity of money resolution No. 2, which simply refers to any Act resulting from the Bill? Surely it was incumbent on the Minister to have drafted her money resolution better, so as to express the interpretation that Madam Deputy Speaker has given to itthat it is limited to that particular part of the Bill?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Treasury Committeeto whose attention I think I should also draw this matter. I am happy that he is in his place. He is right: the Minister cannot expect both to present vague drafting of that kind yet also to say, in her very brief introductory remarks, that it applies only to the additional costs resulting from the insertion, in this Bill at this stage, of an entirely new Bill, in the form of new clauses. We have to have one thing or the other. The Minister said that what she was asking us to approve related only to the high hedges provisionsand what I am now saying to the House, to the Treasury Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee is that we shall watch carefully to see whether that is the case.
	One of the values of this little debate is that we may have teased out a lacuna in our procedures. Even after several centuries of practice, perhaps we can still occasionally drop a ball here or therewho knows? In the context of what we have just found out, we may want to re-examine the relevance of money resolutionsbut that debate is for another day.
	You have helpfully guided me in the direction of the high hedges provisions, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, the Minister identified those as the sole reason for the money resolution before us. That is interesting because I, and one or two of my hon. Friends, took issue with those ideas when they were part of a private Member's Billa badly drafted one, we thought, and full of anomalies. Many questions were asked about it when it was laid before the House, and I am happy to say that it expired, partly because its promoter failed to answer any of the questions that he was asked at the time.
	Sadly, the Bill's subject matter has now re-emerged in the guise of an enormous series of amendments to a different Bill, and will therefore receive no further effective scrutiny in this House, because of the absurdity of the timetable that is about to be imposed on us.

John Gummer: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that it is an outrage that a Bill that was so unsatisfactory that the House did not bother to give it even the slightest of fair winds should now be reintroduced in a way that gives the House no chance whatever of discussing it? This is a constitutional disgrace, and the Government should be ashamed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's feelings are, we are discussing the merits of the money resolution, not of the Bill.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and although I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, I am unable to say so, because you have denied me that opportunitybut if I am lucky, my words might just get into Hansard.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that Mr. Speaker is aware of precisely what this means: we cannot talk about the subject under the money resolution, and we shall not be able to talk about it under the rules that the Government are imposing. It remainsalthough I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not wish to comment on thisa parliamentary disgrace.

Eric Forth: Let us look, so far as we are allowed to, at the implications of the insertion in the Bill of an entire controversial, complicated Bill involving enormous bureaucracy at local authority level and potential infringements of property anddare I say it?civil rights. All those things have many money implications. It has been argued that a large number of people are concerned about what have loosely come to be known as high hedges. However, if bureaucracy has to be provided in local government as a result of the money resolution, we do not know with any clarity whether the mechanism will allow local authorities to ask for additional funding from the Secretary of State to recompense them for the additional costs. We do not know any of the details at all.
	We know that the Government have a regrettably long record of imposing additional responsibilities on local authorities and not giving them the funding to reflect that. We could find ourselves in the ridiculous position where a highly controversial measure is introduced by this back-door method and a huge bureaucracy has to be developed in local authorities to give effect to it, without the compensating finance being given to local authorities.

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend is, perhaps, suggesting some addition to the local government settlement in respect of the bureaucracy and appeals arising from the Bill. Would not those shires or districts with lower hedges have to subsidise those with higher hedges?

Eric Forth: Of course, that is one of the possible implicationsbut we do not know. My hon. Friend and I, and the House, are left guessing about that. Sadly and typically, the Minister did not do us the courtesy of giving us any details at all. She thought that she could get away with a charming smile at the Dispatch Box and a few words of introduction, in the hope that this would all float through. The days of money resolutions floating through are over, as of now. There will now be some attempt to scrutinise themI give my modest personal guarantee on that. I should be grateful if the Minister could pass that on to her colleagues.
	I see that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is gasping to get into the debate and add his little contributionit is true to say that he would be thought a lesser parliamentarian if he were not. However, let me not digress, because I am very focused on this part of the Bill and I want to tease out as much of the detail as possible.
	The Minister mentioned that the money resolution was supposed or intended to provide additional funding for the appeals mechanism. Indeed, you helpfully mentioned that, Madam Deputy Speaker, having singled it out on the advice of your experts. I wonder, however, whether it goes further than that. Are we supposed to assume that the other provisions contained in this enormous additional Bill which is being sneaked into the Bill at this late stage, without any potential for real amendment or scrutiny, are cost free? I never thought that, when I was here on Fridays participating in the scrutiny of what was then a private Member's Bill. The promoter of that Bill, my good Friend the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), is with us because of his long-standing, passionate interest in this matter. He is smiling because he knows that the Government will do his work for him. I congratulate him on that. He has got what he wanted and argued passionately for at the time. He and I managed to be on different sides of this hedge and not fall out, which I value greatly.
	My hon. Friend will agree that this is not a satisfactory way for us to examine the cost implications of this large addition to the Bill, even if it were assumed that it could be related only to the appeals mechanism, to which you referred some little time ago, Madam Deputy Speaker. The truth is that these complex provisions, which occupy pages, must surely involve additional costs to local authorities throughout the land. Even though some provisions are supposedly for the recovery of those costs, I do not think that anyone in the House would be prepared to believe that there would ever be a full recovery of all the costs involved in a measure such as this to the satisfaction of the taxpayer. After all, should not this stage of the proceedings begin and end with the taxpayer? We are in the House on behalf of the taxpayer, and it is on their behalf that we should be considering the matter and speaking this afternoon.
	I am very unhappy about how this has been brought about. I have a request to the Government and to the Minister in this particular case: I would wish that when we have money resolutions brought before us, the wording were much more precise so that the House is given an opportunity properly to weigh the validity of the request being made. The words we have before us are effectively a blank cheque. Although the Minister said that the matter involves simply the amendments on high hedges, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, helpfully referred more specifically to the appeals mechanism. We are considering either the whole provision or part of it, but we are not sure about that.

Angela Watkinson: The proposed new clause 45 refers to a fee, which a complainant under this new legislation must submit to the relevant authority. Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that the size of the fee will have to be calculated to cover the costs of a local authority in dealing with a complaint from one of its residents?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is exactly the point. What we do not know, because the Minister has not told us, is whether the Secretary of State will give local authorities a sum sufficient to cover all the costs of the additional bureaucracy, the initial applications, the complaints mechanism, the appeals mechanism and the enforcement mechanismall those are in this Bill within a Bill. Alternatively, will an estimate, or an attempt to estimate, be made as to recovering some of those costs by way of fees, or indeed land charges, which are also referred to in the Bill? We simply do not know.
	We are thus in the absurd position of having a money resolution before us that seeks at a very late stage to give effect to a large addition to the Bill of which we know no details at all, although they will be of crucial interest to us as council tax payers and as taxpayers at large. We have no idea what the relationship will be between the Secretary of State and local authorities and no idea what the relative impact is likely to be on rural authorities on the one hand and urban authorities on the other.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who represents a suburban seat, was the last Member but one to attempt to take such a Bill through the House. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made the subsequent attempt. I know that a lot of my hon. Friends who represent rural seats were concerned about the implications of such provisions for rural areas. They might well be, because even supposing that the implications are to be restricted to the appeals mechanismas you so helpfully told us a few moments ago, Madam Deputy Speakerwe still do not know what the relative impact is likely to be on hard-pressed authorities, be they urban, suburban, or indeed rural. That is a range of random thoughts that I had on glancing at the proposals.

John Taylor: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is making his point with great force and he referred to me with considerable chivalry. It is true that we were on opposite sides of the argument but have remained honourable friendsin his case, right honourable. I invite him to share my view and analysis that the problem is primarily suburban. Although he is making his very powerful

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been points at which I have made it clear that the resolution under discussion is a money resolution relating to that part of the Bill that relates to appeals rather than anything else.

John Taylor: Thank you so much for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. On that very point, I put it to my right hon. Friend that inasmuch as there may be a cost to local authorities, there could be a saving in the law courts.

Eric Forth: That is a typically incisive comment from my hon. Friend, who is not only effectively the author of the series of amendments that relates directly to the money resolution, but a distinguished lawyera lawyer who has practised in a community with exactly these problems. So in this case I defer to him and accept what he is saying, which the Minister would not dream of telling us, probably because she does not know about these things and is not going to help us at all. There may be an offset in the cost between, for example, fees and court costs or police and other costs.

Michael Fallon: My right hon. Friend should be a little wary of a lawyer telling us that something is good news. He may well mean that there may be a reduction in private expenditure by those pursuing their cases through the courts, with a consequent increase in public expenditure through extra levies raised on council tax payers or taxpayers generally.

Eric Forth: I hope that the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees will be watching such matters like a hawk, lest either you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or evenwho knows?the Minister has been misinformed.
	In this short debate, we have managed to pin down one fact very precisely on the taxpayer's behalf: the fact that the only additional costs arising from the motion relate to the appeals part of the Bill that is being smuggled into the overall Bill.

John Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) rightly said that the measure might save many people a lot of money in their own pockets, but public expenditure is involved in running the law courts. That is the point that I was making earlier.

Eric Forth: Of course. Law courts, local authorities and waste authorities all have the potential to become involved, but that, it appears, is a matter for another day.
	For every citizen who is agitated about the height of a hedge, there is a proud owner on the other side of the hedge. Those who imagine that this is a vote-winner ought to think a little more carefully. My point is that, ultimately, all these people are taxpayers. I am not going to stand on one side of the hedge or the other; we ourselves are all taxpayers, and we are supposed to be representing taxpayers here. I am not sure that we have been given the best opportunity to do so today.

Michael Fallon: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate and am sorry that I did not hear the Minister offer some explanation for the motion.
	When I heard your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I felt rather troubled. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out, the motion neither refers to the appeals mechanismalthough you informed us that it didnor confines itself to the new part A of the Bill that will constitute the high hedges legislation.
	You kindly informed us, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this expenditure would be dedicated to the appeals mechanism. I always wonder at the wisdom of the Chair, but in this instance I am bound to wonder how you acquired information that has not been laid before the rest of us. Surely if the motion is to apply only to a specific sectionthe appeals mechanismof a specific and discrete part of the Bill, there is no reason why it should not say so. You therefore need not have been troubled, Madam Deputy Speaker, to explain the motion that the Minister has been championing.

Eric Forth: Before my hon. Friend continues with his analysis, let me worry him a little more. As he will know, Lords amendment No. 45(1)(b) refers to
	such fee (if any) as the authority may determine.
	Subsection (7), however, states that the
	fee determined . . . must not exceed the amount prescribed in regulations made . . . by the Secretary of State.
	First the amendment implies that the local authority can set the fee; then, almost immediately, it says that the Secretary of State can place limits on that fee. Does that not have cost implications for the authority, let alone the appeals mechanism?

Michael Fallon: It certainly does. It is a shame that the Financial Secretary is not here to move her own motion and explain it properly. I well recall that, under past Governments, the Treasury Minister who had tabled a motion appeared and did her, or his, best to explain it. That would have been helpful in this casenot least because, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is obvious from the tabling of the motion, and the clarification offered from the Chair, that someone somewhere has made an estimate. Somebody, somewhere has realised that quite considerable additional expenditure could be involved, and someone at the heart of Government has already started to wrestle with the much more interesting question of which group of taxpayers should fund it. Should it be the generality of taxpayers, which is why the measure is being brought before us? Should it be council tax payers, who are of course being cross-subsidised in any case by the grant from central Government, or should it be only a section of council tax payers, which was the import of my earlier intervention, with those shires with only a small number of high hedges, or those shire districts with smaller numbers of high hedges, being called upon to cross-subsidise to deal with all the fees, appeals, rulings and bureaucracy involved in high hedges in urban areas?
	We are told that we all have to help fight crime and deal with antisocial behaviour, but I am not sure that all my constituents in Sevenoaks realise that the measure may involve some cross-subsidising of the high hedges of Solihull. There might be no objection to that. The council tax payers or the national taxpayers of Solihull might be quite happy to chip in to the fees and expenditure incurred in dealing with high hedges in Sevenoaksand we do have some high hedges in Sevenoaksbut if this is to be a new line of public expenditure and a new element of council taxation, Ministers must be a little more forthcoming about the scale of the expenditure involved and exactly how they see it falling vis--vis council tax payers and taxpayers generally. We are owed a little more explanation.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) now has, in his own words, the glory of the freedom of the Back Benches and is able to range across these issues. Perhaps I can put his mind at restI hope so.
	I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. There are two main issues, the first of which is whether the original money resolution covered the costs arising from the Bill and the amendments to it, including amendments tabled in the Lords. The original money resolution covered all the provisions of the original Bill, amendments made in the Commons and amendments on those subjects in the Lordsit covered any Act arising out of the original areas of the Bill. This resolution is necessary because the provisions on high hedges were added in the Lords; the Commons was not in a position, at that point, to approve expenditure on high hedges.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for coming back to us, with her usual graciousness and courtesy, with her explanation, but can she tell me what the difference is in substance between what is being added to the Bill by way of the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill, which was smuggled in, and the substantive additional elements that have been added by their lordships? There may be differences in scale and scope, but what is the difference in substance? How can an open-ended money resolution that we passed previously cover some but not all? Can she make the distinction?

Hazel Blears: Yes. I thought I had done so in my earlier remarks, but the right hon. Gentleman clearly did not quite understand it, so I will repeat it. The difference is that the original money resolution applied to all the areas that were under consideration in the original Bill. It therefore included amendments to the Bill in the Commons and amendments in the Lords on any of those matters falling outside the original subject areas. The proposals on high hedges did not form part of the subject matter of the original Bill, so we need to plug the gap in the money resolution.
	The proposals on high hedges are new, whereas the subject matter of the Lords amendmentsraves, travellers, parenting orders and housing injunctionsformed substantive parts of the original Bill and were therefore covered by the original money resolution. The proposals were not smuggled in but were welcomed by many people and enjoyed cross-party support in the House, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, in the spirit of the debates on the Bill, that there is good logic and intellectual coherence in our introducing a new resolution.

Michael Fallon: I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining that. I fully understand why the first resolution should necessarily be general, but I do not understand why the second resolution is not more specific. Why does it not specifically refer either to the appeals mechanism or to the part of the Bill that has been introduced?

Hazel Blears: I was about to deal with the second issue that has been raised: the extent of the money resolution and, indeed, how the appeals mechanism fits with other provisions on administering the system for high hedges. Hon. Members will know that we intend to consult local government on how the administration of the system should proceed, what the appropriate fees should be, and whether the fees should be calculated on a full cost recovery basis or whether any additional expenditure is needed to deal with the appeals process. It is right to consider those matters with local government during the consultation on the regulations, which will determine the procedure for dealing with these important and welcome measures. On that basis, I commend the money resolution to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill (the Act), it is expedient to authorise the payment of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 8th April 2003 and 24th June 2003:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Nos. 1 to 22 An hour and a quarter after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Nos. 23 to 41 Two and a quarter hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
			 Nos. 42 to 74 Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.[Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 161.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 14, 28, 45 to 48 and 54, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 13
	  
	Injunctions Against Anti-social Behaviour on Application of Certain Social Landlords

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8, 62, 64, 72 and 73.

Yvette Cooper: Many of the amendments are for clarification. The aim of amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 is to clarify who is eligible to be protected by injunctions under new section 153A of the Housing Act 1996. The intention, which remains unchanged, is for social landlords to be able to apply for injunctions to protect tenants, leaseholders and anyone else who occupies property owned or managed by a relevant landlord, and to protect staff providing housing management and related services on behalf of the landlord.

Gerald Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the votes cast a few minutes ago by the Liberal Democrats to prevent the Bill from becoming law this Session are consistent with the votes they cast in the summer to prevent it from becoming law at all, and consistent with the votes of the Liberal Democrats on Manchester city council, who voted against the Bill and said that too much antisocial behaviour legislation is already on the statute book?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right. Many Liberal Democrats have opposed a large number of the Bill's most important measures during its passage through this House and the other place. I am sorry to hear that the Liberal Democrats on Manchester city council have taken a similar line. We often find that those working most closely with local people and communities are most strongly aware of the difficulties faced by people who live on local estates where there is severe antisocial behaviour. The strongest advocates of greater action are often local councillors and those involved in the local community.
	The amendments also allow social landlords to apply for injunctions to protect visitors engaged in lawful activity in the locality, including the work force, staff or contractors employed by social landlords, and other residents in the area, including owner-occupiers and tenants of other landlords.

James Paice: The Minister says that the amendments will protect visitors to social housing. How is that to be done? As the specific reference to visitors has been removed, which parts of the clause will ensure that they are covered?

Yvette Cooper: We think that the issue is covered in clause 13. The specific reference to visitors has been removed because of concerns raised by practitioners that the existing provisions might give the courts leeway to adopt a narrow interpretation and assume that the provisions apply only to visitors. The reference has been removed to ensure that the wide range of people in the area is covered and that the courts do not use a narrow interpretation. We made our intention clear throughout our debates in this House and in the other place, and we decided that it was better and clearer to remove the reference. New section 153A(4)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 deals with the matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further in his remarks, I shall be happy to respond. Practitioners wanted to be reassured that the provisions would cover the full range of people in the area and that their application would not be restricted by decisions made in the courts.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but I have to press her a bit further. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that the matter is covered by new section 153A(4)(c), which extends protection to
	a person employed (whether or not by the relevant landlord) in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's housing management functions.
	I cannot see how that covers all types of visitorfriends, for example.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right about new section 153A(4)(c), but the overall impact of Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and new section 153A combined is to include everyone who is visiting the area. It is important that, for example, a regular visitor to a particular area who finds himself being intimidated by antisocial behaviour is protected by decisions made by social landlords. The impact of the Lords amendments to new section 153A is to cover those who are visiting as well as those who are already resident in the area, including owner-occupiers and tenants.
	Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 also ensure that injunctions are available to protect residents in the area, even if they are temporarily absent from their home. If someone has been forced out of their home by racial or sexual harassment, for example, an injunction under new section 153A should be available to protect them if they wish to return.
	The effect of Lords amendment No. 4 is twofold: it replaces locality with neighbourhood and changes the housing accommodation to housing accommodation. Those appear to be relatively minor wording amendments, but they are designed to make it clear that landlords have a responsibility for the protection of the communities who live in and around their housing stock. The new wording better reflects that role.
	Lords amendment No. 6 makes it clear that housing accommodation refers not to single premises, but to the whole of the landlord's stock in a particular neighbourhood. It also encompasses, for example, the common parts of an estate.
	Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 enhance the use of demotions as a tool to prevent antisocial behaviour. They require landlords to serve notice before issuing demotion proceedings and specify the information that the notice should contain. That is valuable in ensuring that tenants are aware of the sanction that is being applied, and that they are given a chance to amend their behaviour and to have a proper hearing.
	Lords amendment No. 72 is designed to ensure that tenants who have the preserved right to buy lose it on demotion. The purpose of Lords amendment No. 73 is to ensure that time spent as a demoted assured shorthold tenant does not count towards the right to buy qualification or discount periods. The existing provisions of the Bill ensure that time spent as a local authority or housing action trust demoted tenant will not count towards the qualifying period for right to buy or the accrual of discount. The amendment ensures that the same rules will apply to time spent as a demoted assured shorthold tenant.
	Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 64 apply to the powers of social landlords to seek antisocial behaviour injunctions. There are times when antisocial behaviour will not fall within the responsibility of social landlords. In those cases we want to ensure that local authorities have sufficient powers to tackle antisocial behaviour more generally within their areas.
	Where antisocial behaviour injunctions are not available, the local authority can use other powers, including applying for an injunction under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. Local authorities already use that section to deal with antisocial behaviour, including, for example, the activities of drug dealers.
	The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that injunctions that prohibit antisocial behaviour that are obtained by local authorities in such proceedings can be properly enforced. Where the conduct that is prohibited includes violence, threatened violence or a risk of significant harm, we want to give the courts a right to attach a power of arrest to the injunction. The changes that the amendments make are modest, but the practical effect is potentially significant.
	Lords amendment No 64 provides that the provision will be commenced in England by the Secretary of State and in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales.
	The amendments are relatively straightforward. They attempt to clarify and improve the Bill and I ask the House to support them.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining things to the House. I think that she is coming to the Bill for the first time. The two principal issues in this group of amendments, which relate to clarification, are ones that we raised in Committee, when we sought clarification ourselves. I cannot help but note that in Committee the hon. Member for Coventry North-East (Bob Ainsworth) Minister who was then dealing with the Billhe is now the Under-Secretary of State for Transportrebutted our concerns and said that the Bill was perfect. I am delighted that the Government have recognised since then that changes need to be made but I am concerned about some of the changes.
	In Committee, I challenged the Government about the definition of visitors, which seemed a broad term. I could see that it was a problem that, as the Minister has said, was open to interpretation by the courts. It could be interpreted narrowly or much more broadly. In Committee, the then Minister said:
	'Visitor' means what it says and the meaning is unusually clear in the law.[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 May 2003; c. 241.]
	It is fine that it is unusually clear in the law, but the fact that the Government have now introduced changes makes me wonder how clear other things are in the law.
	The serious point is that the Minister has repeated this afternoon what Lord Bassam said in the other place. He said that part of the objective of this part of the Bill was
	to protect visitors engaged in lawful activity in the locality.[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 503.]
	We all want to protect visitors, but, assuming that the amendments are agreed to, I am perplexed by what the Bill will provide. It seems that protection will be extended to
	a person with a right . . . to reside in or occupy other housing accommodation in the neighbourhood of housing accommodation mentioned in paragraph (a),
	or to
	a person employed . . . in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's housing management functions.
	I accept that effectively the Minister is making it clear in Hansard that she wishes the provision to extend to visitors, but I fail to see how the two criteria of
	a right to . . . reside in or occupy
	or a person employed necessarily cover all visitors, and especially the visitors about whom we are most concerned. For example, such visitors may be friends of elderly residents who come round for afternoon tea. They are certainly not occupying and do not appear to be covered.
	We are in the final throes of our consideration of the Bill. I shall not take up the time of the House by opposing the amendment, but I am concerned about the implications of the Minister's proposals. I should be grateful if she would be kind enough to write to me, and perhaps put a copy of her letter in the Library, about the way in which visitors are to be protected, given that she is excising reference to them from the Bill. The provision is apparently restricted to people who reside in an area, who have a right of occupation, or who are employed in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's housing management functions.
	The other significant issue is locality. In Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) resisted our concerns about the definition of locality, which were shared by our noble Friends in another place and by Liberal Democrat Members in the House. He said:
	At the moment, locality is determined by judicial discretion in each case. That is as it should be. It is up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered in given circumstances, and we do not intend that it should be defined as narrowly as pertaining to particular residences.[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 May 2003; c. 228.]
	That is precisely what the Government are doingthey are defining locality narrowly so that it pertains to all the residences owned in an estate by a social landlord. I am not going to revisit the arguments that we had in Committee about specifying a distance. We proposed a distance of within 100 m of a particular property, but any figure would have done, as the purpose was to challenge the definition of locality. The Minister has changed locality to neighbourhood, which is defined as
	the whole of the housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord in the neighbourhood and any common areas used in connection with the accommodation.
	That does exactly what the Government said they would not do. They define neighbourhood
	as narrowly as pertaining to particular residences.
	I emphasise the plural used by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.
	I should be grateful if the Minister explained precisely how the Government are defining neighbourhood. At what stage, for instance, does the neighbourhood cease? If a social landlord owned a cluster of properties and, in the next street, owned another cluster of properties, would that be the same neighbourhood? Would the provision apply to the second group of houses? What sort of boundaries, borders or even horizons have been created to define a particular neighbourhood in Lords amendment No. 6?
	None of the other amendments in the group causes the Opposition any great concern, so we support them. However, I am extremely concerned about the excision of the reference to visitors and the definition of locality. I support the Minister's desire to clarify the provision, but I am not sure that she has achieved that in the amendments, so I would be grateful if she could comment further.

Annette Brooke: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), as I have been reassured by what the Minister has said today but remain doubtful about the effect of the amendments on the Bill. I, too, would be grateful for clarification. On the use of locality versus neighbourhood, we did indeed have a lengthy and, it appeared at the time, unproductive discussion of the issue. I therefore welcome the amendments.
	In the other place, Lord Bassam said:
	We want to support landlords who wish to do more than manage or protect their own tenants and take action to tackle anti-social behaviour more generally in the neighbourhoods in which their properties are situated.
	He went on to say that
	there must be a link with the housing management function.[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 503.]
	I felt comfortable with that, because it seemed to extend the provision outside the individual residence, but it is still not entirely clear. I would welcome clarification of the matter. If the amendments reflect what was said in the other place, it would be good to put back a link to the local crime and disorder reduction partnership, as there would almost certainly be scope for working together beyond an individual residence. Will the Minister consider that?
	One of my greatest concerns remains the amendments to clause 14. A demotion order can move quickly to a loss of property and homelessness. There has been a great deal of debate about that. I welcome the amendment, which requires a notice to be served, so that there is a warning prior to the demotion order. I hope that that will slow down the process slightly, but does the full amendment, including the 12-month limit specified, address the concerns expressed in both places that somebody could become homeless not purely because of antisocial behaviour, but possibly because of a technical knock-out? Once a demotion order was made, a landlord could dispossess people of their property rather easily.
	Aside from those points, I generally agree with this group of amendments.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wanted me to clarify the effect of removing the reference to visitors. This is a case when the procedures of the House and the way that documents are made available to us, with the Lords amendments on one piece of paper and the original Bill as a separate document, instead of a version that combines the two, mean that it takes longer to understand the proposals.
	Let us consider the revised clause, if the amendments removing the reference to visitors were accepted. There would be a revised section 153A(4)(c) under the new wording, although the amendment is to paragraph (b) under the old wording. The new section 153A(4)(c) would read:
	The second condition is that the conduct is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any of the following . . .
	(c) a person engaged in lawful activity in or in the neighbourhood of housing accommodation mentioned in paragraph (a).
	The hon. Gentleman has in front of him the original Bill. Section 153A(4)(b), which currently reads:
	a person visiting the housing accommodation or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in,
	would be renumbered (c) and read:
	a person engaged in lawful activity in or in the neighbourhood of the housing accommodation.
	Removing the words
	visiting the housing accommodation,
	means that the reference is to
	a person engaged in lawful activity.
	Someone visiting a friend in the housing accommodation under discussion is clearly engaged in lawful activity. Removing the phrase
	visiting the housing accommodation
	puts the emphasis on everybody who is engaged in lawful activity in that area, rather than on those who are visiting or otherwise engaged in lawful activity. Although we do not believe that that has a substantial legal impact on the wording, it ensures that when the courts interpret the measure, we have provided as much clarity as possible. We do not focus too much attention on those who are visiting, and have made it clear that everybody is covered. Visitors would clearly continue to be covered by the new wording.
	The hon. Gentleman's second point was also raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and concerns the switch of wording from locality to neighbourhood. Again, the impact of the change is small. Locality is the word used in the previous legislation. Practitioners raised concerns about the narrow interpretation of case law in particular examples such as the Enfield and Nottingham cases. Neighbourhood was added instead to ensure that existing case law was not simply read forward because locality had again been used. That has been done purely to try to reassure practitioners while providing as much clarity as possible to the courts.
	Neighbourhood is just as flexible a term as locality. It includes the whole area and clearly includes owner-occupied property and property owned by other landlords on multi-tenure and jointly managed estates. Changing the word does not negate any of the earlier discussions about this matter.
	The hon. Lady also referred to demotions. I know that Liberal Democrat Members raised that point in Committee. We believe that demotions are a potential alternative to what landlords may currently have to do. As landlords do not have any way of providing a sanction or clear warning to tenants where there is problem antisocial behaviour, they may need to go straight to trying to evict them, perhaps making somebody homeless because of unacceptable antisocial behaviour.
	The demotions have been introduced as an alternative sanction for landlords. They allow tenants one last chance to amend their behaviour by responding to the sanction. Notices should be given to ensure that tenants are aware of the threatened sanction and that they have the chance to make appropriate representations and give their side of the story. Equally, we are not discussing changing the overall approach to demotions, which provide an alternative to evictions and give social landlords a sanction to address antisocial behaviour. We know that many social landlords currently feel that they cannot act with sufficient flexibility because there are not enough measures to address that problem.
	I have responded to hon. Members' concerns and hope that all hon. Members will support these relatively straightforward measures.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 24
	  
	Interpretation

Lords amendment: No. 9.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 22.

Hazel Blears: Amendment No. 9 removes clause 24(2), which was made redundant by Government amendments moved on Report. Amendment No. 10 corrects an earlier drafting error.
	Amendment No. 11 specifies that the term guardian in clauses 25 to 29 has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. That makes the law consistent, because that meaning is already applied to parenting orders for criminal conduct or antisocial behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
	The Government listened carefully to the points that were made in the other place about the importance of the work of local authorities in tackling antisocial behaviour in their areas, particularly through local crime and disorder partnerships. That is the context in which we agree with amendment No. 12, which ensures that the agreement of the local authority is given before powers to disperse groups can be used. Local authorities and the police already work closely together in a whole range of partnerships to tackle crime and disorder in local communities, and are implementing strategies for dealing with many of the issues addressed in the Bill. It is right that we should expect there to be agreement on the authorisation of the powers that are used as part of that process. The amendment will strengthen the Bill and lead to even greater partnership working between local authorities and the police.
	The provisions of part 4 extend to the British Transport police. Amendment No. 13 merely updates a cross-reference to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
	The aim of amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 is to give to county councils the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders that is currently available to the police, district councils and registered social landlords. It was requested for county councils by the County Councils Network. We recognise that county councils have responsibilities that encompass tackling antisocial behaviour because in many cases they are responsible for youth services, the provision of education, and social services. The amendments therefore extend to county councils the power to apply for ASBOs on the same basis as registered social landlords, the British Transport police and, under the Bill, housing action trusts. Moreover, sometimes the main legal department for an area rests within the county council. It is important that county councils be played into the provisions, because they can often provide essential legal and technical support to district councils in terms of exercising those powers.
	Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 are largely technical. They move all the clauses in part 5 to the end of the Bill, in accordance with the drafting convention that dictates that parts of Bills entitled Miscellaneous powers should be placed at the end. The important matters of substance relate mainly to the necessity for the police to have the agreement of the local authority in exercising the dispersal powers and to the need to include county councils to ensure that they can play an effective part in the essential partnerships with the police in tackling such matters.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that many of the amendments are entirely non-controversial and what I have always described as technical, probably because I do not understand them.
	I am, however, concerned about the amendment that deals with authorising the use of the dispersal powers that the Bill creates. The Minister clearly foresaw that, because it was the only one that she concentrated on. There is no difference between Conservative Members and the Government about the importance of the involvement of local government in dealing with crime, particularly low-level crime. We welcome the setting up of crime and disorder reduction partnerships and, as the Minister knows, have our own proposals on how to enhance local involvement in those matters. Equally, unlike Members of some parties, the official Opposition welcome the measures on dispersal powers. We believe that it is right that the Government should give the police powers to disperse groups of people in such circumstances. In Committeethe Minister will not remember this, because she was not the Minister responsible at the timewe discussed why the power needed to be restricted to a particular authorised area. We said that if the police saw that there was a problem, they should be able to deal with it there and then, rather than having to go through the panoply of procedures involved in authorising a specific area.
	Nevertheless, I still do not understand why the Minister wants effectively to give local authorities the veto over an area. If, as the Government intend, the power is to be restricted so that it does notas we contend that it shouldapply across the country, the local authority should of course be consulted. But there is a great difference between consulting an authority and saying to it, You must make the decision: yes or no. If you say that the police should not have dispersal powers in this particular neighbourhood area, that will be the final say on the matter. In all honesty, the Minister knows as well as I do that there is a huge variety of local authorities. One or twothankfully, it is only a minorityare not always as helpful to the police as we would like. The amendment creates the risk that however much local communities and the police want to be able to use dispersal powers in a particular authorised area, the local authority may say, No, we don't agree. We don't want the police riding roughshod over our communityor whatever kind of language it chooses to use.
	I do not wish to comment on any of the other amendments, but I stress to the Minister that I am worried that her attempt to involve local authorities through consultation, which is a worthy objective, may backfire. I fear that by saying, in the words of the amendment, that authorisation
	may not be given without the consent of the local authority,
	she will add to a concern that many local people express when they tell us, as they often do: Local authorities do not really care about us. I want local authorities to be involved, but I am very concerned about giving them a complete veto.

Annette Brooke: I am pleased to see the amendment, because we are talking about serious measures to disperse young people for their mere presence. I contend that legislation is already in place to move young people on when serious problems arise. Given the way in which the dispersal orders are to be enacted, involving the local authority means increased democratic accountability and shared responsibility for decisions. That is welcome. In some areas, there could be great sensitivities in relation to different ethnic minorities. The amendment provides a protection when the local authority needs to work so closely with the police in those circumstances. As members of the Committee will verify, I maintained throughout our deliberations that we should refer all the measures to the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. It is not enough simply to move people on; one has to know where they will go and what they will do once they have been moved.
	The amendment, by including the local authority, offers a genuine opportunity to consider what other measures we should introduce to support the dispersal order. The amendment is therefore a positive, not a stopping provision. It could encourage the inclusion of all the supportive measures about which I spoke at such great length.
	The Local Government Association suggests the inclusion of county, district and unitary authorities in the Bill. It is interesting that county councils are being allowed to issue ASBOs. It makes sense to ensure that consultation takes place with the county council because in areas where there is a county council plus a district council, the former provides the youth and education services. Although I would not like the veto to be extended, the consultation element should be made clear. The amendment should be welcomed and we shall wait to ascertain the outcome: whether the new curfew orders will be used more than the previous orders and whether the dispersal orders will be greatly used.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) have shown how providing a balance is genuinely a matter of fine judgment when deciding whether there should be consultation or agreement between local authorities on the appropriate steps to take. It is my judgment that there should be a strong relationship between the police and local government in implementing the powers. I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and the Liberal Democrats took such great exception to the powers when they were originally introduced in the Bill. They could be useful in specific circumstances when antisocial behaviour occurs and local people are intimidated by others gathering in an area and causing harassment and distress.
	The local authority is an essential partner in tackling crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour and it should therefore be engaged in a joint enterprise with the police in dealing with it. I stress to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that I do not like to view the amendment as a veto because if we implement section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 properly, we should not be in a position whereby one partner pulls against the other. The partnership should be strong and influence matters on the ground. From my experience, crime and antisocial behaviour are tackled effectively in places where the police, the local authority, businesses, voluntary groups and the local community are engaged together, bringing added value to the partnership and making it work. If the local authority and the police pull against each other, that is evidence of a poor partnership, which we would want to investigate further.
	We do not want a veto, but if the dispersal powers are exercised in the case of very young children on the streets and they need to be taken to their home or, if they are likely to suffer significant harm, a place of safety, social services and possibly the education authorities need to be involved to ensure that the needs of the young people are taken into account.
	The dispersal provisions have been controversial. I recently met members of the Youth Parliament and we had a couple of hours of useful debate during which the young people asked me some searching questions. To some extent, they put me on the spot and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing the provisions with them. I want to put on record the fact that the provisions are as much about protecting young people in the community so that they feel free to go about their lawful business without being intimidated by others as they are about tackling antisocial behaviour.
	Our attempt to involve local authorities through the amendment is evidence of our twin-track approach, which is apparent throughout the Bill. That means support for those who want to change their behaviour, for parenting and for young people, coupled with tough and effective enforcement. That twin-track approach will help to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. I am pleased that we have come down on the side of involving local authorities and ensuring that local councils, with their elected members, play a genuine role.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire knows that local authorities and the police increasingly use the national intelligence model together, share information and are involved in joint tasking and co-ordination. That is another big step change in the partnerships' successful operation.

Annette Brooke: I welcome the Minister's comments on twin tracking. When we held our discussions in Committee, there was great emphasis on enforcement and not enough emphasis on support. It has therefore been pleasing to hear her comments today.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is delighted because it is important that we constantly consider the issue with the two points in mind. Our aim is to try to divert young people especiallyI accept that antisocial behaviour is not confined to themfrom crime and disorder. As a former public health Minister, I believe that prevention is better than cure and that if we can act to reduce crime, we should do that. I am equally convinced of the merits of tough and effective enforcement and sanctions. Any responsible policy should encompass both.

James Paice: The Minister may be delighted that I was not delighted. I re-emphasise that I agree with her about the importance of local authorities, the police and other agencies working together. I passionately believe in that. She is also right that the better they work together, the more effectively they operate. I am worried that she effectively said that if that ideal relationship is not in place, the local authority will call the tune and that whatever other agencies, community organisations and the police may say, unless the local authority consents to making an area authorised, it cannot happen. That is my only point of concern. I support encouraging bodies to work together, consultation and the rest of the panoply of relevant measures, but I am worried that the Minister claims that whatever the police or the community says, the local authority has the final word.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we have a wide range of tools not only to encourage good partnerships but to take positive steps to ensure that they are in place. It is occasionally necessary to put our money where our mouth is. If we talk about involving local government in what we do, it is occasionally right to put that at the heart of our policy making. We have agreed to the amendment and are prepared to say that the local authority's agreement is an integral part of our ability to get the most out of the powers that we have put on the statute book. That is not only a symbolic indication of the importance of local government but something more fundamental. It stresses that the crime and disorder partnerships must have equal buy-in from every partner if we are genuinely to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour.
	The hon. Gentleman also knows that we, like his party, have proposals for the future direction of the police services and community safety. At the heart of the proposals is a genuine commitment to more local involvement from the community, local authorities, businesses, the voluntary sector and all of us as citizens in taking responsibility for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. It is occasionally right that the commitment is reflected in the words of legislation. In this instance, there should be a joint enterprise for using the dispersal powers.
	I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance about the reasons for the decision that the Government have made. I believe that we have made the right judgment. I am sure that I have not convinced the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, but I am delighted to have convinced the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 22 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Clause 48
	  
	Dealing with Noise at Night

Lords amendment: No. 23.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 38, and 65.

Hazel Blears: This group of amendments relates to environmental matters that were originally in the Bill: night noise, graffiti, fly posting, spray paints and data on waste. Clause 48 amends the Noise Act 1996 to end, for England and Wales, the previously adoptive character of sections 2 to 9 of that Act. From now on, all local authorities in England and Wales will have the power to investigate complaints of excessive noise at night, give warning notices in respect of such noise and, where the noise remains excessive after the service of a warning notice, either prosecute or, more likely, issue a fixed penalty notice. Those powers will now be available for all local authorities, rather than having to be adopted.
	Amendment No. 23 will allow local authorities to retain their receipts from night noise fixed penalty notices for use on any qualifying functions. The amendments will encourage and support the increased use of night noise fixed penalty notices by local authorities, with resulting benefits for people who suffer noise from their neighbours at night. The provisions are similar to those for the fixed penalty notices that can now be issued for littering and dog fouling, and we feel that if local authorities can keep the income from their fixed penalty notices, they will be more inclined to use their powers to relieve the considerable nuisance caused by excessive noise late at night.
	Clauses 54 and 55 give local authorities the power to clean graffiti from property owned by public utility companies and statutory undertakers. I am delighted to say that amendments Nos. 24 to 33 will allow local authorities to recover the costs of removal from the owners of that property.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank the Government, and especially my hon. Friend for her work on the amendments. They embody suggestions that I made in Committee, and I am thrilled that statutory undertakers will now be responsible for maintaining their street furniture, which when covered in graffiti not only causes offence, but makes people worried about moving about their local high streets and other areas. I am also thrilled that if local authorities remove that graffiti, they will have the power to recharge.
	One of the many themes supported by Members on both sides of the Committee was that powers that are given must be workable and usable. I believe that these powers will be used, precisely because the local authorities will be able to recharge. I also think that many of the statutory undertakers will

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that she must resume her seat when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet, and also that there is a distinction between an intervention and a speech. However congratulatory she means to be, she must keep that balance.

Hazel Blears: As I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amendments Nos. 24 to 33 will allow local authorities to recover the costs of removal from the owners of such property. I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has pursued this matter with such vigour, and without whose tenacity and determination these provisions might not have reached the statute book, as I hope they will.
	We are aware of the concerns that have been raised about the financial impact that the amendments might have on the industries concerned. That is why we propose to pilot the measures in 12 authorities, so that they will not put an undue burden on business. The pilots will give us the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the measures, and we shall consult the companies and local authorities concerned to ensure that we get the scheme right.
	The amendments also provide for guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, on the operation of the provisions, and local authorities will have to comply with it. The guidance will be drawn up in consultation with the industries and local authorities concerned.
	Hand in hand with the clean-up measures goes tougher enforcement action against the perpetrators. That is a common theme: more action, but more enforcement as well. Amendment No. 34 will increase the fine for those prosecuted under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from level 3, a fine of up to 1,000, to level 4, a fine of up to 2,500. That increase recognises the growing incidence of fly posting, and the need for a more punitive deterrent for those responsible for that environmental crime.

Eric Martlew: Will the fly-posting provisions apply to political parties?

Hazel Blears: Anybody who contravenes the Town and Country Planning Act will be liable to a fine higher than the current level 3 fine. I am aware that there are different provisions in different parts of the country about what kind of party political advertising can be permitted. For example, I know that in Birmingham there is a tradition of allowing posters to be stuck on street furniture. That certainly is not a tradition in my community, so the position varies from local authority to local authority. None the less, where those provisions are contravened, the fine will be up to 2,500 rather than the present level of 1,000.

Eric Martlew: If there were a general election, and a political partythe Liberal Democrats, for examplewas fined 2,500, would that be added to its election expenses?

Hazel Blears: That would be a matter for the returning officer and the Electoral Commission; it would be determined by electoral law at the time.
	Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 concern the age below which sale of aerosol paint should be restricted. The Government have been open to argument on that point throughout the passage of the Bill. We remain convinced of the need to take the tools of the criminal damage trade out of the hands of the taggers, but the precise age at which it is proportionate to restrict sale of those items is a matter for debate. Having listened carefully to arguments both in this House and in another place, we agree that an age limit of 16 is more appropriate than one of 18.
	Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 relate to the Secretary of State's power to require data returns to be made by local authorities and the Environment Agency about cases of fly-tipping with which they deal. There are currently no national data on levels of fly-tipping. The Environment Agency and most local authorities already collect some data, but not in any standardised way. It is important that we develop our information base on the extent of fly-tipping, to help inform future policy development both nationally and regionally. Local authorities will also benefit from the measure, as they will be able to access reports from the database.
	The amendments introduce a new wording of section 71(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to the requirement for information. The previous provisions introduced a reporting requirement only in section 59 of that Act. The revised wording will ensure that local authorities may be required to report all the incidents with which they deal, no matter which power they use to do so. This is a wider provision, and I understand that local authorities welcome the power, rather than seeing it as a bureaucratic burden, because they want access to the database that will be developed. We shall try to ensure that it is a web-based facility, which can be accessed with minimum cost and trouble to local authorities, and I think that it will prove useful in determining our future policy on waste and fly-tipping, which, unfortunately, is an increasing problem.

James Paice: I broadly welcome this group of amendments, and I particularly welcome the introduction of an appeal system. It is always a matter of concern to me when we give public bodiesbe they local authorities or any other public bodypowers over the private sector against which there is no appeal. The matter was debated in Committee. I am particularly concerned when we create a power for an authority to take action and to reclaim moneys from the private sector, so the introduction of an appeal mechanism is extremely welcome, and I thank the Minister and the Government for it.
	I was interested to hear the Minister's remarks about the money side of this question and about the fact that she is putting into the Bill the way in which local authorities will be able to utilise the money that they have raised for approved purposes. It is worth bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made precisely such a suggestion in Committee and was, not for the first time, rebuffed by the Government and told that they did not believe in hypothecation and that it would not happen. Of course, they are now putting that precisely into the Bill, enabling income to be hypothecated directly for particular items of expenditure.
	I cannot help but gloat a littleI suspect that the Liberal Democrats will, tooat the way in which the Minister so charmingly said that the Government had now been persuaded that 16, rather than 18, should be the minimum age in relation to the sale of aerosols. If my recollection is correct, the hon. Lady was not the Minister in Committee, but, if my recollection is correct, there are Members in the Chamber todayincluding the former Minister with responsibility for the policewho were around at that time, and who were members of the Committee. They will remember how totally and utterly the Government rejected the logic of the arguments put by my hon. Friends and me for reducing the age at which someone should be prevented from buying an aerosol. I remember drawing attention to the factI think it was on Second Readingthat someone can, at 16, use a shotgun, go into a pub and have a drink, or even get married. At that age, they can have a driving licence and buy a car, but if they bend the car, they cannot go and buy the paint to mend it until they are 18. That seems utterly ludicrous. I am delighted that the Government have heeded the arguments made in the other place, albeit at the eleventh hour, but I cannot pretend to be surprised or even disappointed that they did not heed the argument made in this place that 18 was too high an age at which to ban something as everyday as the purchase of a can of aerosol paint.
	I do not wish to deny the damage that graffiti does. It is a serious problem, and my hon. Friends and I support the Government's efforts in that regard. I would also say in all honesty to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that I do not in any way resent the fact that she has been extremely successful in getting her proposals into the Bill. As I said earlier, I support the amendments in their entirety, but I have to say to the Minister that she is extremely courageous to suggest that the Government have listened to the arguments and been persuaded on the issue of age, given the strength and volubility of the way in which several Ministersand, indeed, Back Benchers who supported the Government in Committeesought to decry the efforts that some of us were making to reduce the age to 16. Even at this late hour, however, this is a welcome concession, and I am delighted to support it.

Annette Brooke: I, too, welcome this group of amendments. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) welcomed the qualifying functions in amendment No. 23 in relation to what the money could be spent on. I would like a little clarification on that. In know from my past life in a local authority that sometimes, when money is ring-fenced too tightly, it cannot be spent on sensible things. Obviously, we want the receipts to be able to finance extra activity. My councils, like others, can barely afford noise patrols at the moment, for example. I wonder whether there will be any consultation before the provisions are finally drawn up.
	I welcome the fact that amendment No. 29 puts guidance on to the face of the Bill. I have not seen such a provision on any other of the relatively few Bills with which I have been involved so far. I strongly support amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I well remember discussing those issues in Committee; in fact, I got the Committee report out so that I could revisit that debate. However, given the spirit in which we are discussing the Bill today, it would be unkind to quote some of the comments that were made. I am sure that these measures are the right ones. The obvious point has been made that if someone can have a driving licence at the age of 17, it is nonsense that they cannot go out and buy spray paint. Overkill such as that can be counter-productive.
	I would like to make a serious point about amendment No. 30, which states that one of the grounds for appeal is that
	the defacement is neither detrimental to the amenity of the area nor offensive.
	I am all in favour of collaborative work to involve young people in creating attractive graffiti, but whenever that sort of work is undertaken, it should be with the permission of the property owner or landowner. I am concerned that this provision could create a complex situation if used as a general defence. I imagine that whether the graffiti was detrimental to the amenity of the area would be a subjective judgment.

David Heath: I, too, am slightly puzzled by that defence, because it appears to invite those on the magistrates bench to substitute their artistic taste for that of the local authority. That does not seem to be an entirely sound legal ground for exemption, and I wonder whether guidance will be specifically given to the bench and to local authorities as to how they should interpret
	detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for making more clearly than I was the point that I was trying to make about subjective judgment. I support the measures on removing offensive graffiti, but I do not want to see a loophole that could lead to some rather strange debates about whether graffiti was detrimental to an area. I emphasise that I am very much in favour of partnership working and creating interesting graffiti, but it must be done with the permission of all the parties involved.

Stephen Pound: Can the hon. Lady come up with a single example anywhere in these broad and sweeping kingdoms of any bit of this foul, feral scrawl that we call graffiti that could possibly be describedeven by a Liberal Democratas attractive and interesting?

Annette Brooke: A person who has painted something on a property could stand up in court and argue that it was beautiful. I probably would not think that it was, but if it was not obviously offensive, the person who had painted it could create a certain amount of legal difficulty. I am sure the Minister will reassure us on that.

Hazel Blears: I shall deal first with the issues raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). He argued that our decision to allow the retention of moneys from the fixed penalty notices for night noise was inconsistent. However, we are already proposing, in clause 51, that local authorities should have the right to retain the income from fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting. That builds on existing powers to retain fee income from littering and dog fouling. This is therefore nothing new. We are allowing local authorities to retain the money from the fixed penalty notices issued for night noise, in an attempt to encourage them to use the powers more widely. That is why we are getting rid of the adoptive provisions and making them apply across local authorities. It is therefore not new for us to introduce a measure to enable the authorities to retain such income. There is a consistency of approach here, and probably also a read-across to the retention of moneys by the police in relation to the income from fixed penalty notices for speeding, which is ploughed back into road safety measures. The Government have a coherent and consistent approach on those issues.
	The hon. Gentleman indulged in some unfortunate gloating in relation to spray paints. I never saw him as the kind of person who would gloat in such circumstancesperhaps I was mistakenbut I think that every Member of the House would acknowledge that graffiti is a huge problem for our communities. That is why we have made it a central part not just of the Bill, but of the Together action plan, which we issued a few weeks ago. If the hon. Gentleman has read that, he will know that we have a major programme called Operation Scrub It, which we hope will lead to the removal of graffiti up and down our land. We also have Operation Scrap It for abandoned cars and Operation Gate It for alley gating, so we have scrub it, scrap it and gate it, and our plans for tackling antisocial behaviour will be very effective indeed.
	I am delighted to say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) that I understand that when reducing the age in respect of possession of spray paints was discussed in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who was previously responsible for the Bill, said:
	I will continue to listen to representations, or any other evidence to show that it is not the age group that the Bill mentions that is presenting the problem. If people think that they have that evidence, they should let us have it, because I do not pretend that we have the whole picture mapped out, or that we know exactly what is going on in our society.[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 May 2003; c. 405.]
	That is perfect evidence of my colleague's open-mindedness and his willingness to listen to evidence, take a rational decision and not reach foregone conclusions.

David Marshall: I am delighted at the measures that my hon. Friend is putting through the House, but I am sorry that they do not apply to Scotland. Have there been any joint ministerial discussions between the Scottish Executive and her Department as to the possibility of having the same measures introduced in Scotland?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for these provisions. Although there have been no formal ministerial discussions as yet, I am aware that discussions are going on in Scotland around similar areas. Clearly, the matters that concern people living in England and Wales are of equal concern to residents in Scotland. Therefore, there will be discussions and, I hope, the sharing of good practice.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of night noise and whether her local authority could afford monitoring patrols. If she talks to her local authority, she will find that there are other ways to monitor noise, such as through the use of technology and electronic devices, which are much more cost-effective than local authority officers marauding on the streets late at night seeking out noise.
	There is a serious issue here, and we want to make the powers as easy to use as we can, because the fact that they have been adoptive has militated against local authorities taking such action. Increasingly, when these powers are taken together with some of those to deal with noisy licensed premises under the licensing legislation, we will begin to have a coherent set of powers that really can help to attack the tremendous nuisance caused by excessive noise. Some people have to live with noise day in, day outor rather night in, night outwhich has a detrimental effect on their well-being.
	The powers will be extremely welcome, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady will support them, although I am surprised by her enthusiasmwhether the powers be on environmental crime, tackling graffiti, fly posting or antisocial behaviour in generalwhich leads me to question why her party finds it impossible to support the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I find this a very contradictory position to take: she is so supportive of all those proposals to tackle antisocial behaviour, yet her party cannot find it in itself to support the Government and the legislation.

David Heath: Without any temptation to gloat at the Minister's expense, may I simply say that had her colleagues expressed their views in the way that she has this evening, committed themselves to the dual working that she has committed herself to this evening and introduced at an earlier stage those amendments that she has introduced this evening, the Bill might have taken a different course?

Hazel Blears: It is perhaps more likely that we might have seen a very different response to the proposed legislation if there had been no change of Liberal Democrat spokespeople.
	I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) that I understand that the Scottish Executive have published an antisocial behaviour Bill, which includes a ban on the sale of spray paints to under-16s. I am sure that there will be extensive joint working between us with regard to those issues.
	I am pleased that the amendment, which I commend to hon. Members, commands the support of the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 38 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

After clause 59
	  
	Raves

Lords amendment: No 39a new clause.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.[Ms Blears.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No. 40, Lords amendment No. 41 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 74.

James Paice: I shall speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 39. I welcome the debate on the two issues covered by this group of amendmentsnamely raves and dealing with unauthorised encampments. Indeed, by my recollection, both were raised in Committee and unauthorised encampments were the subject of a lot of discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I spoke at length and, if I dare say it, with some passion because of constituency experiencesthis is a serious problem.
	I shall take the two issues separately if I may and deal first with raves, to which amendment No. 39 and my amendment (a) are relevant. I welcome what the Government are doing about raves. Reducing the relevant number from 100 to 20 is extremely sensible. It means that organising a rave for 99 people, which I understand has been the practice of a lot of people who tried to get just inside the law, will end. I also strongly welcome the removal of the term open air from subsection (2) of section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. However, the purpose of my amendment (a) is to challenge the Government as to why they have not removed the same term from subsection (1).
	Subsection (1) states:
	This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons.
	The Government are making an amendment by striking out 100 and inserting 20, but they have left in the words open air. Subsection (2) refers to
	as respects any land in the open air, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent,
	but the term open air is to be deleted. I cannot help but feel that that is an oversight by the Government. The Minister is looking perplexed, which leads me to think that this has not clicked with either the Government or her advisers. The number in the 1994 Act as amended by the Lords amendment will be reduced from 100 to 20 without the term open air being removed. It seems to me that the gathering has to be on land in the open air.

David Heath: rose

James Paice: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who may be able to correct me.

David Heath: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in his drafting amendment, but I also think that passing his amendment, whose wording is simpler than that used by the Government, would make subsections (3) and (4) of amendment No. 39 redundant. Those would no longer be necessary, as the hon. Gentleman would have extended the application to an occurrence in the open air or within a closed building.

James Paice: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps the Minister will persuade me that subsection (3) is indeed sufficient, but I do not see for the life of me why the Government could not have simply struck out the words in the open air in both instances.
	Let me now deal with the other amendments concerning travellers and the 1994 Act. I think this discussion will illustrate the absurdity of automatically timetabling all our debates. The travellers issue was not debated during the main part of the Bill's passage; the Government introduced it in the form of an amendment on Report, and the timetabling meant that it was not reached. This, therefore, is our only opportunity to debate the amendments to the 1994 Act involving travellersand because we are discussing Lords amendments, that opportunity is extremely limited.
	It is a tragedy that the Government have arranged matters in this way. I am not saying that I object to the amendments, which move in a direction that I urged on the Government in Committee. I am merely saying that had the Government allowed more time on Report, when the amendments first appeared, we might have felt more certain that they were getting this absolutely right.
	I am still concerned about the fact that there is nothing in the Government's amendments, now incorporated in the Bill, or in the Lords amendments to deal with the detritus left by travellers, which was raised by almost everyone in Committee. That is a huge problem on both public and private land, but in many ways it is worse on private land, because it is for the owner of that land to pay the cost of clearing what may be huge piles of unpleasant waste. I welcome the addition of a power for the police to move on unauthorised travellers, the removal of the numbers limit, and many other new measures. However, as I said on Third Reading, I am worried about the loophole created by the Government in regard to alternative sites.
	The Bill seems to say that police officers can move travellers on if they are illegally encamped and an alternative site is available. The Minister kindly nods, implying that my simplistic mind has got it right in this instance. On Third Reading, I feared that the Government risked driving a coach and horses through the intention of the relevant clauses. Since then they have tabled Lords amendment No. 40, which would insert the word suitable. That worries me chiefly because suitable is a subjective term. I do not want to return to the issue of what constitutes appropriate graffiti, but suitable is subjective as opposed to objective. One person's definition of a suitable alternative site might not be another person's definition.
	I speak as one with some years' standing in the House, representing a constituency where hundreds of travellers are going in and out all the time. They and their advisers know the law back to front, and if there is a loophole to be exploited they will exploit it. The word suitable immediately creates an opportunity for travellers and advisers to seek to undermine the law by challenging the suitability of a site in the eyes of the law.
	Lords amendment No. 41 seems to constitute an attempt by the Government to define a suitable alternative site, although it does not say as much. It states that a police officer
	must consult every local authority within his area the land is situated as to whether there is a suitable pitch for the caravan . . . in the local authority's area.
	That seems to me to restrict the scope of clause 61 dramatically. If, for example, travellers were encamped in a local authority area but close to its border, the officer would have to consult that authority. If there were no alternative site in the authority's area, the powers in the clause could not be used. There might, however, be a suitable alternative site only a mile away, in the area of another authority that would not have to be consulted.
	My constituency shares its boundary with two other counties, as well as the rest of Cambridgeshire. We have serious problems with unauthorised encampments, often within a mile or two of the Essex and Suffolk borders. There may be very convenient alternative sites in those counties, but if I understand the Bill correctly, the authority that must be consulted is the one whose area contains the illegal encampment. I am being parochial here, but I would hope that we all know our constituencies better than anywhere else.
	The Minister will confirm whether local authority means a county or a district authority

Hazel Blears: Both.

James Paice: In any event, because South Cambridgeshire borders many miles of the Essex boundary, if there is no alternative site in the rest of Cambridgeshirewhich there may well not be, because of the large number of travellersbut there is one just over the border in Essex, that cannot be taken into consideration.
	I do not pretend that I have necessarily got the drafting right in my amendment, but it is too late to change it now. Let me again use the example of South Cambridgeshire. You will know the adjoining district of Uttlesford, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is in your constituency. I suggest that if it contained an alternative site, its authority should be consulted.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point, which I fear we will not able to resolve at this late stage. Will he also consider county authorities which, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, made provision for transit sites covering all district council areas within their boundaries? Those sites will be discounted for the Bill's purposes unless they happen to be in the same district council area as an illegal encampment.

James Paice: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. The Minister said a moment ago that the county area would be covered, but what worries me is the possibility of a site's being just outside the county area. I could have framed my amendment to include all adjoining countiesindeed, I suspect that many of my constituents would have preferred adjoining countriesbut I am trying to be reasonable, and to propose an amendment that the Government might consider acceptable.

Eric Martlew: In my county of Cumbria, there is a transit site very near my constituency. From the south of the county, it is 90 miles away. I suspect that it would not be suitable to ask travellers to go 90 miles.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I made earlier about the use of the term suitable. What is suitable? How far is suitable? Is 90 miles suitable? I do not know. It will require a court eventually to decide. As the hon. Gentleman knows, travellers are fully aware of every aspect of legislation affecting them and they will test it.
	I come back to the issue of alternative sites and what may be a suitable distance. It would be easy to suggest that a suitable alternative site should be one within five, 10, 15 or even 90 miles, whatever distance one chose. Rather than have a debate about how far is suitable for an alternative site, I suggest merely that we should ensure that all adjoining districts to the district in which the unauthorised encampment is located should be taken into account. Please do not think from my earlier comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am entirely desirous of deporting all the unauthorised encampments in my constituency to yours. I simply use it as an example of what I am trying to get across with the amendment.
	I fear that what has happened is that the Home Secretary and indeed the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), the previous Minister who dealt with the Bill in Committee, were determined to be tough but that, since the Government tabled their amendments, there have been voices urging that they be weakened. I fear that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 do weaken the original proposals, even though, as I said earlier and as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, this is the first time that we have debated them; we did not have a chance to debate them in earlier proceedings. The purpose of my amendment on travellers is simply to ensure that, where we are searching for what may be a suitable alternative site, not just that district or the county but all adjoining districts are consulted, so that, if the unauthorised encampment is close to a county boundary, we ensure that the other districts surrounding it are also consulted under new subsection (3B) in amendment No. 41.
	This is in many ways the most important group of amendments that we shall discuss this evening. I hope that I have managed to explain to the Minister the import that I attach to them and the reasons why I tabled them. I look forward to her response.

John Denham: I will be brief and make a few remarks on the amendments to clause 61. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. I personally am pleased to see these clauses in the Bill because they enact a strategy that was announced during my time as a Home Office Minister. If time were not pressing, I might discuss why they did not get into the Bill at an earlier stage, but I will leave that for another occasion. However, I am pleased that that approach is being taken.
	I can see both sides of the argument. The difficulty is that far too few local authorities, including district councils, have made provision for the type of temporary move-on site that I take to be meant by suitable. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that we are talking not about an all-singing, all-dancing long-term residential camp site but about a suitable site to which someone can be directed, with the basic facilities that are necessary. Without an incentive for local authorities to make that provision, it is unlikely that they will do so. The police will be hampered in the use of the power by the lack of any facilities in the surrounding area.
	I agree that in an entirely sensible and utterly co-operative world the position taken by the hon. Gentlemanthat all provision should be taken into account would make sense, but we are at a period when district councils must be focused on making that provision. It is an argument that needs to be advanced. In my local authority area, the cost of clearing up just two encampments in the past year has been 50,000 and we are not yet at the end of the financial year. We need to get local authoritiesthe incentive is in the Billto invest that money in the sort of move-on facilities that can cut the costs that they are incurring on clearing up waste. I think that what the Government are doing will provide the incentive for local authorities to act and not just to say, We assume that someone else will deal with the problem and the police can direct people in that direction.
	The issue may need to be revisited when there is an adequate pattern of provision in every area, and it is logical to look at everything that is available in the whole of Hampshire, in my case, but we are not in that situation at the moment. Therefore, provided that the term suitableI trust that there will be Government guidanceclearly means basic, hard-standing chemical soak-away facilities, a standpipe or whatever, and not the all-singing, all-dancing residential complexes, for which it has been difficult to get planning permission, the Bill will take us a significant way forward.

Nick Hawkins: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I raised Committee concerns I had in respect of my constituency, which abuts Hampshire. Does he recognise that there are considerable difficulties even in areas where there is substantial local authority provision? Chobham in my constituency, a small village, was hugely over-run by a massive new site being created in breach of all the planning rules, even though there was already an existing proper site provided by the local authority, so a local authority-provided site does not necessarily solve the problems.

John Denham: Of course, there are problems. The difficulty ever since the original Act has been that local authorities have been reluctant to provide the transit move-on sites that are necessary. The Bill and the logic of the approach says, Here is a power that is available to the police but only if the local authority in that area acts to make suitable provision. Without that early incentive, we will not see an expansion in the type of facilities that need to be available, and then in practice the much faster move-on powers will not be available to the police.
	As we all know, it can take weeks to move on an unauthorised encampment. In one case in Southampton recently, there was a dispute as to whether the landowner or leaseholder should take action. Things dragged on even longer, so I welcome the moves that are being taken, even though I suspect that, if we are successful at providing more temporary camp sites, there may be a case in years to come to revisit the debate that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has started.
	While I am on my feet, may I say to the Minister in supporting the overall approach that is being taken that I was a little disconcerted to find last week that the guidance coming from the Home Office on the use of antisocial behaviour orders and the new powers to deal with travellers is not exactly extensive? If we wish to see the police use the new ASBO power against travellers, some extended guidance from the Home Office on how to do it, how to collect evidence and how to get the ASBO to court would be enormously useful. I am convinced that that complements the measures in the Bill well but we need to ensure that it can be used at local level.

Annette Brooke: I await with interest the Minister's response on amendment No. 40 and amendment (a). We had an interesting exchange. It is a matter of waiting for her pronouncement on that.
	On the amendment on travellers, I was interested in the interpretation by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I had not realised before he spoke that there would be an incentive to provide transitional sites. I understand the logic now that it has been expressed in that way, but I question whether that is sufficient incentive. I suspect that it will take a lot more and a lot of persuasion to get local authorities to do something about what is a serious issue for all our constituents.
	I favour amendment (a) to amendment No. 41. It seems to make a lot of sense. Indeed, I do not see how one can argue against it. If we have a site 100 yd over the border, surely it needs to come into play. There must be some wording that could pick that point up.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 could have greater longer-term significance. The principle of making local authorities work together is surely another way forward because some local authorities will argue that they simply have not got places, whereas a number of different types of council, covering larger areas, can truly work together. County councils were specifically mentioned. I represent part of the unitary authority of Poole, which is in the county of Dorset, although it is a separate authority. We would have big problems with moving travellers on without that amendment because of the proximity of the unitary authority boundary and the county council boundary. So I very much support that amendment and await the Minister's comments.

Hazel Blears: I wish to respond to the Opposition amendments that have been tabled to Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 41.
	During previous stages, hon. Members mentioned the problem of raves, so the Government took the opportunity in the other place to introduce measures to deal with that important issue. The Lords amendments will change existing legislation to include indoor trespassory raves, reduce the numerical threshold for action from 100 to 20 people and make it an offence for a person on whom a direction has been served to attend another trespassory rave within 24 hours of the direction being given. Those three trends, which show how legislation was being gradually undermined, were identified by our work with the Association of Chief Police Officers. People were organising events for just under 100 people, events that took place one after another in similar places and an increasing number of indoor events.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 39, tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), may appear attractive at first sight, as its wording is simplerthe words in the open air would be omittedbut I assure hon. Members that section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Bill, will address the problem both of raves in the open air and of indoor trespassory raves. I emphasise that fact. If we were to agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal, we would catch all indoor eventsfor example, house parties where people were not trespassing and were present with the agreement of the person organising the event. I cannot imagine that he wants to include a provision that would catch people who were not trespassing. The Bill is intended to catch people who are trespassing on other people's land.

David Heath: I have been reading section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. It applies only where serious distress is being caused to the inhabitants of a locality, so there is still a heavy qualification.

Hazel Blears: Yes, but Lords amendment No. 39 will meet the requirements that we want to achieve to address the trends, which ACPO identified, that are undermining the existing legislation. We want to deal with events that are organised indoors and that still have all the elements of the unacceptable raves that were being organised outdoors. The Government's proposal will do that, and the hon. Gentleman's proposals would go wider than would be appropriate for the legislation. I hope, therefore, that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that Lords amendment No. 39 will achieve what he wants and that he will not press amendment (a) to a Division.
	I turn now to the amendments on travellers. Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 provide swifter eviction powers to deal with trespassers on land when an alternative site is available. Again, those amendments were tabled as a result of the Government listening to concerns that were expressed in the Lords. Lords amendment No. 40 will ensure that, before the police issue a direction for trespassers to leave land, a suitable pitch will be available on a local authority site.
	Hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), asked what sites might be suitable. A transit site could certainly be suitable. If such issues are the subject of litigation, the courts will ultimately decide what falls within the ambit of a suitable site. We would expect and hope that a fairly pragmatic view would be taken in respect of the practicalities. We will certainly offer guidance on the meaning of the phrase suitable site. The guidance will not be legally binding, but we will try to give as many indications as we can about what we think falls within that definition.

Nick Hawkins: As I mentioned in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I have a big constituency interest in this issue, as the Minister knows. Does she recognise that there is great concern among local authority chief executives, including those in my area, that the Government's proposals may allow a loophole that will make it more difficult to obtain the orders that we were discussing in Committee? Indeed, Labour Back Benchers raised the issue in Committee.
	Does the Minister also recognise that it would be very helpful if the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)who is sitting on the Front Bench with the Ministeragreed, further to what she has already written to me, to talk to her predecessor about what Front Benchers discussed after one of the later Committee sittings, because we need joined-up Government on this issue?

Hazel Blears: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Under-Secretary will explore those matters. I understand that she has been in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman and that she is certainly happy to consider those issues.
	Determining whether a site is suitable is a matter of getting the balance right. Travellers have an interest in gaining access to proper facilities, but hon. Members have clearly expressed views about the rights of the community not to be subject to some of the damage, distress, costs and waste that result from illegal encampments. It is crucial that we get that balance right. I wonder whether there is a fundamental philosophical question about whether a site can be an alternative if it is not suitable; the courts, rather than me, will probably have to decide that. In considering whether a site is suitable, certain factors will have to be taken into account that make it a realistic alternative to which people can be directed. That is a serious matter for us to explore, but getting the right balance between the various interests is very important.
	The new powers in the Bill to deal with trespassers on land aim to provide an additional police power in areas where local authorities have provided authorised sites and there is space on those sites. It important to say that it is an offence for those who are given a direction to leave an unauthorised site to return to that local authority area as a trespasser. That is the incentive in the system for local authorities to make the necessary provision. They can then avail themselves of that power, in addition to the current public order powers, which will allow them swifter eviction and make it an offence for people to return to the area in future.
	It is worth pointing out that, where no space is left on local authority sites, the police still have the power to direct trespassers to leave land under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994so the police are not left without any power if there is a high degree of antisocial behaviour and problems are caused to the local community.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41, tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, would widen the consultation requirements on the police before exercising those new powers. Under amendment (a), rather than simply having to consult the local authorities in whose area the land is situated, the police would also have to consult all adjoining local authorities.

James Paice: Districts.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman has accepted that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 may well not be drafted perfectlyit is a very late amendmentin relation to who needs to be consulted. I have already confirmedI am happy to do so again for the recordthat the existing provisions require consultation with local authorities in the area, so the county and the district authority would be involved in a two-tier area. We believe that that amendment would unhelpfully break the direct link between the provision of sites for travellers in a local authority and the availability of the new powers.
	Those new powers are a key part of the Bill, but they will be available only where local authorities have proper provision. If we were to accept amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41, we would allow a local authority to rely entirely on a neighbouring authority's site provision to deal with unauthorised encampments in its area. That would remove the incentive for local authorities to provide suitable sites for travellers.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asks about cases where local authorities might have extensive provision that is full and suggests that his amendment is necessary to direct people into a neighbouring area. Equally, I am sure that he would accept that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 would allow authorities that had made no provision to direct people into a neighbouring area. It is crucial to strike the right balance between the interests of travellers in gaining access to facilities and those of the community to be protected from some of the undoubted problems that flow from unauthorised encampments. We have to keep that link. If that link were broken, it would undermine the way in which those powers could be exercised.

James Paice: The Minister seems to be saying that the rights of whoever owns the land on which travellers are camping without authorisation, which she seemed to be espousing, should be secondary to the obligation of the local authority to provide traveller sites of some form. With respect, I do not think that many people in this country would agree that it is down to the local authority's decisions whether travellers should be able to park illegally on private or perhaps public property on which they are not meant to be parked. That is the gist of what she suggests.

Hazel Blears: Most people in this country would not welcome the position whereby those in a neighbouring local authority who had not made provision for travellers were able to offload their problems on to the residents of a neighbouring local authority that had complied with a responsibility to provide at least minimum services for people in such circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman knows extremely well, making legislation in this place is always a matter of balancing the rights and competing interests of many different groups. Most people would want the Bill to maintain the incentive that encourages local authorities to make appropriate provision. They would view askance the prospect of a local authority, perhaps not one like his, that did not have any provision whatsoever being allowed to direct travellers in their area to a neighbouring local authority, which would have to pick up the bill for providing those facilities.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has not dealt with constituencies such as mine, which are close to a county boundary. A substantial part of my constituency border runs along both the Surrey-Hampshire county boundary and the Surrey-Berkshire county boundary. Surely it cannot be right that, once the Bill becomes law in its current form, only the authorities in Surrey would be consulted, and facilities that might be only a mile or two away but that were just over the county boundary in Berkshire or Hampshire would not be considered. That cannot be common sense.

Hazel Blears: I think the Bill strikes the right balance, whereby the district council and the county council of the area concerned would be consulted. That is an appropriate balance.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made a good point about local authorities co-operating, which we are always keen to ensure. She referred, however, to councils being made to work together. We are not in a position to make local authorities work together in those circumstancesagain, I am sure that she would share my view about democratic accountability and ensuring that local authorities can take decisions locally. In response to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I am prepared to consider, with the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whether the guidance to be issued in relation to travellers' sites can encourage more co-operation and joint working to resolve some of these matters. Clearly, that would enable the police to take advantage of the compulsory sanction available in the Bill, but if we can express in the guidance our will for local authorities to co-operate where appropriate, we shall certainly do that. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I should say that we will keep the matter under review; there may be further proposals that we can introduce.
	We are keen to ensure that we get the balance right in this important area of law. I am delighted that these matters are now within the ambit of the Bill. They will provide welcome extra powers for the police and the community. We still feel, however, that maintaining the link between the provision of sites and the ability to have this expedited power is essential. There is a dearth of provision in this area in local authorities up and down the country, and if we are to manage things so as to avoid the chaotic situation that existed in the past, more provision is important.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, in some welcome, supportive remarks on the Bill, mentioned the issue of guidance to the police and how they can use the antisocial behaviour powers in relation to travellers. I am more than happy to consider that. I want to place on record my view, which is firmly held, that the standard of behaviour that we expect in this country is the same for people wherever they come from, whatever their background, and whatever lifestyle they have adopted. They have a responsibility to live their lives in a decent manner that does not impinge on the rights of the vast majority of people in this country to go about their lawful business. It is essential that everybody, from the range of sections of the community, adheres to the standards of decent behaviour in this country. On that point, the travelling community is just as subject to the provisions in relation to fly tipping and waste disposal as anyone else. I am only too well aware of the enormous costs that have sometimes been faced by local authorities in clearing up the remnants left by unauthorised encampments. Plainly, everybody in this country should be subject to the same legislative requirements in terms of living with other people in the community. I commend amendments to the House.

James Paice: First, may I address the Minister's response to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 39 on the issue of raves? I bow to the legal advice that she has received, which is far wider than that available to the Opposition. If she believes that the problems in relation to the open air are covered better by her way than by mine, so be it. I will not pursue that.
	I want to respond, however, to the hon. Lady's comments about travellers and my amendment. I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the work that he did in pursuing the problems and issues related to travellers to ensure that they are addressed in the Bill. I would be interested on another occasion to hear why the provision was introduced at such a late stage that we have not had a chance to debate it properly in the House, but I welcome its inclusion nevertheless. I wholly agree with the Minister that there is a need to take action, for which I was pressing in Committee.
	I find myself at odds with the Minister, however, in relation to her argument against my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41. It is slightly disingenuous of her to imply that my amendment also relates to counties, as it refers specifically to a district or unitary authority: the adjoining district or unitary authority to the site. Of course I understand her point and that of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen that not every authority is as good as, in my case, Cambridgeshireand its districtsin providing both permanent and transitory sites. Of course some authorities do not make such good provision. I would argue strongly, however, that other avenues are available to the Government, including the district auditor, to make sure that local authorities fulfil their obligations.
	I feel passionately that the people who will suffer if the Government resist my amendment are the landownersperhaps small or public landownerson whose land such people descend and park without authorisation. Even if there is no site in a district, but there happens to be one a mile or two over the district boundary in a different county, the Minister says that that cannot be taken into account. It is that landowner who will suffer. I am more than happy to see alternative measures to encourage local authorities to provide satisfactory campsites.
	In relation to the Minister's last remarks, picking up the point about antisocial behaviour orders, of course she is righteveryone in this country has a right to go about their daily life and live their lives without interruption, intervention, harassment and intimidation from other groups of people behaving antisocially. However, I have to tell her that nowhere is that more apparent than in someI stress the word somecases in which travellers are involved. In constituencies such as mine and many counties such as Cambridgeshire, there are areas in which someagain, I stress the word sometravellers make life a misery. All that we tried to do in Committee was to change the Bill to reduce that misery a little.
	The Government have gone some way towards doing what we wanted, but if they resist amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41, they will continue to provide a loophole in the law. I fear that the loophole will mean that the powers will be rarely used. That is worrying and it negates the import of what the Minister believes she is trying to do. For that reason, I shall press amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 to a Division. I realise that we must first dispose of the other business and, to expedite that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.

Clause 61
	  
	Power to Remove Trespassers: Alternative Site Available

Lords amendment: No. 41.
	Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a) in line 10, at end insert
	'3C Where the local authority in 3B is a District or Unitary Authority the officer must also consult every adjoining District or Unitary Authority.'.[Mr. Paice.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment No. 41 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 42, after clause 65, to insert the following new clauseHigh hedges.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 61, 63 and 66 to 71.

Yvette Cooper: The amendments give local authorities the power to deal with complaints about high garden hedges that cannot be settled by negotiation and to take action if necessary. They import into the Bill the provisions so ably championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in his private Member's Bill, the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill. The Government are extremely pleased to incorporate those measures in this Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing so much to pursue the cause and to raise the concerns of people who are troubled by high hedge disputes.
	There have been seven private Members' Bills on the subject. Most received broad support, certainly from Labour Members. Opposition Members also wrote to the Government on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) introduced one of those Bills. Baroness Gardner of Parkes recently introduced two Bills on the subject and we have responded to the concerns that she raised in the House of Lords. The Government backed the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and looked for other ways to pursue it when it was talked out by a small number of Conservative Back Benchers. We have also responded to Members of both Houses who asked whether the measures could be incorporated into this Bill, which we decided was the right thing to do.
	Unreasonably high hedges can block out light from neighbours' houses and gardens. Hedgeline estimates that there are 10,000 cases across the country of neighbours who are in dispute over the height of a hedge. We are all aware of problems such as bungalows crowded out by towering leylandii. We know that that makes neighbours' lives a misery, especially if the hedge owner refuses to respond. It is unfair on those who are suffering from the problem to leave them with no mechanism for appeal or adjudication.

Greg Knight: On fairness, my reading of the new clauses is that they would also apply to a case in which a new property is built on a plot of land next to an existing high hedge. Why should the owner of a high hedge have to cut it back because of a property that is subsequently built next door? Would it not be more reasonable to exempt those cases that arise when the house comes after the hedge?

Yvette Cooper: We hope that neighbours will resolve such problems themselves. Local authorities can take a wide range of considerations into account when addressing such disputes. They have discretion to respond to the nature of the circumstances involved and to direct remedial action. They may, however, decide that although a hedge has an impact on a house, remedial action is not appropriate in the circumstances. We will consult further on the guidance and the implementation of the measures.
	The problems involve disputes between neighbours that we hope they will resolve. If they do not, the fundamental principle is that it is right to have a dispute resolution mechanism and some way of sorting out the problem. In truth, to those who suffer the most extreme forms of the problem, it can be just as antisocial as graffiti or noisy neighbours. We should not accept the stereotype that antisocial behaviour is only about teenagers on low-income estates. People face a wide range of antisocial behaviour and it is right that we can address problems relating to high hedges in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill.

John Horam: Following on from the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), I think it important that in this respect we keep the Bill as simple as possible. I strongly support and greatly appreciate the efforts made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) to bring the issue to the attention of the House through his private Member's Bill, and I am delighted that the measure has all-party support. However, we need to keep things simple and rely as far as possible on common sense and neighbours sorting the problem out between themselves. If we make the provision too complicated, with too many exemptions, we will land ourselves in serious trouble.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right. Furthermore, we should allow local authorities to take the most appropriate decision in the circumstances, because every case will be different. It would not be appropriate to try to prescribe in legislation the types of hedges that people should have, nor to set down blanket provisions. The approach taken should be one of dispute resolutionfinding a way to solve the problem.

Jim Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. These are human situations in which emotions are involved, and there has to be some form of resolution. That should be achieved primarily through conciliation, but if that does not work, something has to be done.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to him as one who piloted two of the Bills on high hedges through this House. He has championed the cause strongly in the past few years. We in this House have had many hours of debate on these issues

Stephen Pound: Twenty-one.

Yvette Cooper: As my hon. Friend reminds me, we have had 21 hours of debate during the passage of the many private Members' Bills on the issue. We know that hon. Members receive huge numbers of letters about high hedges from their constituents, and we at the Department have received many as well. The Government are keen to get the measures on to the statute book as rapidly as possible, and I am pleased that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill has provided a mechanism by which to achieve that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Opposition called for a provision to deal with high hedges in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Will the Minister say what the regulations, which I understand are not yet published, will contain? Will they be based on the current Building Research Establishment guidelines? Will she say something about costs? How much of an extra burden will be placed on local authorities?

Yvette Cooper: That is the purpose of the consultation. We aim to have regulations published and out for consultation as rapidly as possible. We will consult over the course of next year, with the aim of having the measures fully implemented toward the end of 2004 if possible. Fees and the guidance that is to be issued are precisely the type of thing on which we shall consult. I do not think that they are appropriate matters to deal with in the Billwe should consult on and deal properly with such details through regulation.

James Paice: As the Minister rightly says, high hedges have taken a great deal of the House's time throughout the years that I have been a Member. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is present on the Treasury Bench, and I entered the House at the same time, I think, and we have witnessed most of the innumerable debates that the Minister described. The hon. Lady is right to say that the issue is one that has featured in every MP's postbagexcept perhaps that of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald), because there are not many hedges in his constituency.

Shona McIsaac: Or in the City of London.

James Paice: The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is being wholly improper in speaking in the Chamber, given that her Minister is in charge of this issue.
	High hedges are of huge concern to many people, but although the fact that they can be a problem is indisputable, views vary on the best way to tackle it. Several attempts have been made to deal with the problem in private Members' Billsnot all of which were the samebut the most recent and, if the measure is passed tonight, the most significant attempt was that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).
	When scrutiny of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill started many months ago, few of us realised just what a Christmas tree it would become. In Standing Committee, my hon. Friends and I and the Liberal Democrats thought that we were pushing our luck in trying to introduce measures to deal with animal rights activists, travellers and raves, but all those things are now well and truly in the Bill, and I am delighted about that. The Government's decision that high hedges constitute an antisocial activity and therefore come within the compass of the Bill was a surprising, albeit worthwhile, piece of initiative on their part.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the Opposition have supported measures to deal with problems of high hedges, and we shall not oppose this provision tonight. The Government have taken an opportunity to address the problemI was going to press my luck by saying Once and for all, but rarely does any piece of legislation solve any problem once and for all. However, for a period, the Bill will address the problem of high hedges and the Government are right to have acted.
	I do not want to sound churlish, but I should sound a note of caution. Picking up a private Member's Bill and adding its provisions to a major public Bill is not an idea that I want to be taken up often, because it is not necessarily the right way to legislate. Despite the number of hours spent discussing this issue, most people accept in their heart of hearts that scrutiny of private Members' Bills is not always as robust as scrutiny of public Bills, simply because of the number of right hon. and hon. Members present on the days when private Members' Bills are discussed.
	None the less, the subject has had a great deal of time devoted to it, and the Government have taken the opportunity to do something about a problem that besets all our constituentsor at least constituents of us alland have done so in a way that I hope will deal with the problem without being over-burdensome and over-intrusive.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to detain my hon. Friend, who is making a cogent case, but will he press the Government on one point? Hedgeline informs us that there are 10,000 outstanding cases which, if they all come to be conciliated immediately after the Bill is passed, will place a significant burden on local authorities. Local authorities up and down the land should have some form of commitment from Ministers that the Government will provide the extra resources required to resolve those cases.

James Paice: My hon. Friend has been a Member of Parliament almost as long as I have and he knows as well as I do that Governments of all persuasions are remarkably good at giving local authorities extra jobs without giving them the resources to do them. I am conscious that even if the Government say that they will provide the extra resources, it only means that they will take the money from some other area in which they were supporting local authorities. None the less, my hon. Friend is right to point out that the measure carries a potential initial cost impact, because of the large number of outstanding cases. I have no doubt that that impact will be felt; then, as the legislation gradually settles in, use of it will decrease.
	I hope that local authorities will use the powers cautiously and deal with real problems, but not enter into too much vexatious activity. I am not suggesting that they are likely to do the latter, but the power should be used sparingly, to address a problem when all else has failed. Having encountered several such cases in my constituency, I know that they can often be resolved by non-statutory meansobviously, statutory means have not been available until now. I hope that the legislative provision will be used relatively rarely, but I am glad that it will be there if all other means of resolving a case fail.
	As I said, the Opposition do not oppose the Government on this matter. Indeed, we welcome the opportunity that the Government are taking to use the Bill to introduce these measures. We hope that they will fulfil the objective and reduce the postbag of most right hon. and hon. Members.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to gloating in connection with another group of Lords amendments. With some difficulty, I will resist the opportunity to gloat until the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) assumes his place.
	In a typically wise, generous and positive contribution, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the Christmas tree effect. In fact, Christmas has come early, not only for me but for the 10,000 hedge victims, who can now face the autumn shades closing in and the prospect of winter stretching before them with the knowledge that, when spring comes, daylight will be allowed to break through to gardens that for too long have been shrouded in darkness at noon, in the perpetual twilight of the garden blighted by the loathsome leylandii. We have the prospect of bringing succour, relief and daylight to those people.
	If I achieve nothing else in my short time in the House, which is entirely likely, the fact that I have been associated with this piece of legislation will not only be a source of immense pride for me but an opportunity that I will use to bore the pants off my neighbours, children and grandchildren in times to come.
	The mood in the Chamber tonight is very different from the mood experienced earlier. These provisions were describedI rather think that the words are carved on my heartby the hon. Member for Christchurch as representing a threat to this green and pleasant land far greater than the effects of the great storm of 1987, of Dutch elm disease and of the depredations of the Luftwaffe. The fact that we have moved beyond that to realise that before us is sensible legislation that will bring great relief to many people is a tribute to the House, and something for which I could not possibly take any credit personally.
	Where credit is to be given, I remind the House of the sterling efforts of Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Baroness Hamwee, who have exhibited deft footwork in the other place. They struggled constantly to ensure that these sensible provisions are placed on the statute book, and they must be congratulated. While I am dishing out early Christmas presentsI hope that it is entirely appropriate to do soI thank my hon. Friend the Minister in the most obsequious and generous terms for her contribution and her dedication. She has taken up the ball that was put down reluctantly by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). That is an immense tribute to her. She has taken it so close to successI was about to say fruition but that may be an inappropriate metaphor in this contextand that is a great credit to her.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has been mentioned. I think that the House was aware that, if all else failed, he had a Bill on the stocks ready to be wheeled out. That prospect concentrated the mind of the House wonderfully. It has encouraged us in the glorious warmth and amity that we are experiencing this evening.
	We should pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who introduced a Bill similar to mine. I pillaged many of his ideas with no acknowledgement whatsoever, but I am glad to acknowledge him tonight. I do not say that because he is sitting behind me.
	I must also refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). I particularly regret that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) has other urgent business this evening. He and I are occasionally confused with each other. How two tonsorially challenged right wingers can possibly be confused in that way is beyond me. However, I consider that I am blessed by the comparison with the hon. Gentleman. He introduced an excellent Bill and allowed me to steal from it in the same way that I pillaged the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South. The devotion and dedication of the hon. Member for Solihull to this legislation is much to his credit. I remember his speeches when his Bill came before the House on one of those benighted Friday mornings of tender memory. They persuaded many people of the efficacy and strength of the Bill. I hope that I have included most hon. Members in the Christmas card list.
	I shall take up the point raised by the hon. Member who I think represents Cotswold. Is it all of the Cotswolds?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Most of it.

Stephen Pound: I refer to the Member who represents most of the Cotswolds, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who talked about the burden on local authorities. Burdens on local authorities are a subject close to my heart. During my 16 years on Ealing council, I was acutely aware that I frequently added to those burdens. However, in the absence of any legislation, there is a huge burden on local authorities. When people have a dispute with their neighbours about hedges, there is no way in which the local authority can help. At the same time, the average member of the public does not believe that the local authority can help. As a result, hours and hours of officer time are spent telling people, We can't help you. In many instances officers cannot provide that piece of information. They then have to provide reasons and justifications. There may well be a backlog. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was entirely right and typically generous and far-sighted in his assumption that that peak will pass and that we will drift down into the sunlit uplands of a world without leylandii disputes.

David Davis: Down to the uplands?

Stephen Pound: I am sorry. Drift up to the downlands. We may either drift down to the uplands or up to the downlands as we choose.
	I wish to underscore the point that was made with great clarity by my hon. Friend the Minister. She referred to the provisions as an essential adjunct to the Bill. If there be criticism of this modest piece of legislation tonightif there is, I have yet to hear itit may come from those who cavil at the way in which this section of the Bill has been brought to the Floor of the House. They may say that it is not directly applicable to antisocial behaviour. I remind the House, if it needs reminding, that two people are dead as a result of fighting and feuding over hedges. There has been one murder and one suicide. The issue is that serious.
	In addition, 4,000 members of Hedgeline and 10,000 people who have reported their problems to Hedgeline are in dispute with their neighbours. I profoundly hope that, once the Bill has passed through the consultation period outside the House and starts to firm up in people's minds as imminent legislation, many sensible people will say, Let's not wait for the Bill. Let's get together, talk and sort it out. There will always be an irreducible minimum. Some people will always use high hedges as a weapon of war in a neighbour dispute. Some people will use these missile-shaped trees as missiles against their neighbour. I accept that that will happen, but it also happens in boundary disputes and disputes about parking access, for example. We are familiar with all the neighbourhood problems that we read about in our postbags.
	Call me naive or call me innocent, but I hope that when people realise that Parliament takes this matter sufficiently seriously to add to the 21 long hours that we have already spent discussing it by bringing it to the House in the form in which it is being considered, they will realise also that the issue is one of great seriousness. I profoundly hope that we will end these appalling disputes over the bizarre invention of Dr. Leyland in 1882. I frequently travel outside my constituency, usually at the request of my constituents, but in doing so I have discovered that a large number of local authorities are already setting in train the mechanism to implement the Bill. There are even companies such as Haygate Engineering, one of our most entrepreneurial engineering companies, that already offer safety platforms to enable local authorities to undertake the work. Councils up and down the country are welcoming the chance, not because they wish to act like some local government gauleiter and dictate how things should or should not be done, but because they have an immense problem and have not been willed the tools to address it.
	This group of amendments will will the tools. We have shown in the House that we want to resolve the issue once and for all. I am delighted that, finally, after all this effort, we are almost on the last lap, and are approaching the prospect that legislation will be made. I do not propose, unless the House insists, to go through every semi-colon and comma of the Lords amendments, which probably constitute the most scrutinised piece of legislation in many a long year. However, for the sake of the House and people outside, who may include my children but not many others, may I stress that the Bill's key aim is not to slice down leylandii? The whirr of the chainsaws will not be heard on every suburban street corner or even most of the Cotswolds. If enacted, the Bill will apply only where there is a problem. People can still have leylandii arching up to the heavens, but if the trees constitute a problem to their neighbours, they will at last have legal recourse to solve the problem.
	The amendments will not mean the end of leylandii, although some of us would be pleased to see the end of that growth. However, where there is a problem, there will be a possible solution. People can still have leylandii and, if they wish, a screen at the end of the garden, but finally there will be a way of dealing with the worst aspects of the problem, such as the soil turning acid from the trees and gardens being in permanent shade. Overall, in the absence of any comments to the contrary, I hope that we accept that the House has taken a problem, addressed concerns, and proposed a resolution.
	In conclusion, I pay particular tribute to the officials who have produced at great personal cost, particularly given the time that they spent in my office, which is not the healthiest environment, a terse, exact, precise, effective and workable piece of legislation. The provision may appear to be a modest piece of legislation, and may not be one of the great moments in legislative history or one of the high points of the parliamentary record, but it will make an enormous difference for the better for a large number of people. Can we ask more than that, when we come to the House, we do not do harm but good for some people? Tonight, we have the opportunity to bring relief to many who have suffered for too long. [Hon. Members: Sit down.] I usually hear the cry of sit down from my own side, but tonight it has come from the Opposition. I strongly support this group of Lords amendments and again thank the officials, other hon. Members who have tackled this issue and, in particular, the Minister.

Annette Brooke: I pay tribute to the many Members who have been involved in bringing this piece of legislation to the point where, we hope, it will be passed. I congratulate in particular the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I was a bit surprised that, on Report, such a charming and eloquent Member had not gathered enough friends to ensure the smooth progress of his proposals. Indeed, I began to wonder where his friends were. However, the fact that those proposals are now attached to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill means that he must have gained their support after all, or perhaps he has friends in higher places. It is difficult to match his eloquence, but the Bill has the potential to improve many people's quality of life greatly.
	There may be lots of jokes about high hedges, but they are a serious problem for many of our constituents.We must, however, put the problem into perspective; we must not sound anti-hedge, as hedges are an extremely important part of our urban and suburban environment. On Report, it was suggested that the hon. Member for Ealing, North wanted to cut down every hedge in the country, which is obviously nonsense. We are talking about hedges that affect people's quality of life. Conflicts can arise, as some people want privacy, but achieving it may result in the loss of light for others and a detrimental effect on their environment. It is therefore right to have a statutory framework in which to address the conflict, which, I hope, can be resolved through mediation.

David Heath: Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure is a helpful addition to our legislative armoury? However, the greatest benefit will come after the first rash of mediation or enforcement, when people will realise that that there is legislation on the statute book and will have sensible regard for the needs of their neighbours as well as themselves.

Annette Brooke: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. If I have any concerns, they are about the enormous amount of work that will have to be undertaken in the first year or two. It will take a number of cases before clear precedents are set, because it is generally true of planning applications that it takes time to look back at other cases. Once we have reached that point, however, it should be much easier to deal with the problem, and people will be much more respectful of their neighbours' needs in the first place. However, it is important to stress that people have the right to privacy, so we must always look at both sides of the argument.
	On Report, we discussed at great length an amendment that would have excluded schools, but that would have had the effect of preventing the worst case in my constituency, involving a private school with a rapidly growing high hedge, from being tackled. The owners contend that it protects neighbouring properties from balls and other intrusions from the school. In fact, it impacts on a large number of people, so it is important that some of the proposed amendments did not get very far.
	I share hon. Members' concerns about the resources needed to implement the provisions, particularly in the first few years, and the burden on local authorities. There is a council in my constituency that does not have any rate support grant, so funding should be targeted so that the costs are picked up. However, the majority of people will be prepared to pay a few pence more so that the problem is addressed.
	I think of the elderly people whom I have known who have had to live most of their lives in a downstairs room with an electric light on all day long. That is a tragedy when people are coming to the end of their lives and may not be able to go out much. I am delighted that we are dealing with the measure tonight. I give it my wholehearted support, as do my hon. Friends, who did their best to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

Lynne Jones: I think I can claim to be the first in the House to suggest that antisocial behaviour legislation should be used to deal with the nuisance caused by giant hedges. That was during consideration of a previous Bill under a previous Home Secretary. The response that I received and the perplexed look that I was given signalled to me that, unfortunately, the time was not yet ripe for such legislation. Since then, as we have heard, private Members' Bills have been introduced by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).
	During that period, a massive amount of lobbying and the effective group Hedgeline, which was founded by my constituent, Michael Jones, have made their mark. A matter which, I am sorry to say, was considered rather a joke eventually came to be taken seriously by the majority of hon. Members, so I am delighted that the Minister, or Ministers, whoever they were, took the decision to incorporate my hon. Friend's Bill into the antisocial behaviour legislation. They were spurred on by the excellent work of Baroness Gardner, who tabled her own less effective amendment, which was subsequently subsumed into the Government's proposals. I congratulate all those responsible, who worked so hard to bring about the legislation.
	I share the hopes expressed by other Members that the prospect of the Bill coming into force will focus the minds of neighbours who are in dispute about high hedges, and that they will come to some amicable arrangement for dealing with the problems. Finally, it is now possible for me to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the meeting that I had requested, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and Baroness Gardner had also requested, is no longer necessary, so we can withdraw the request.

Adrian Flook: I am pleased that we will not go through every one of the amendments. At 16 pages, the measure is considerably more complicated than I remember it when I served on the Standing Committee and we rather rushed through the private Member's Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I am pleased that after many years the Bill will be enacted and finally has Government support. With reference to the Minister's comments earlier, I note that since August 2000 the Government have said that a new law would be introduced as soon as there was space in the parliamentary timetable.

Stephen Pound: I am extremely reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his flow, but the amendments before us are, in the words of parliamentary counsel, to all intents and purposes almost identical with the Bill that was introduced in my name, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing else has been smuggled in in the shadow of the cypress leylandii.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the fact that his name will be associated not with a private Member's Bill, but with a Bill on antisocial behaviour. With his predilection for smoking, he would know something about that.
	The problem of high hedges is not as gripping an issue in the Taunton constituency as it is in the leafy suburbs of Ealing, but it is nevertheless an issue, judging by the number of letters that I have received. Mr. Bernard Routley of Priorswood has been troubled enough to get in touch with me several times in the two and a half years that I have been a Member of Parliament. No doubt he will be particularly pleased by amendment No. 46 allowing him to seek a remedial notice. I am sure that that will reduce the burden on Taunton Deane borough council, which has had to keep replying to members of the public such as Mr. Routley, who feel constrained by the lack of legislation on the matter.
	Even in the rural parts of my constituency such as Bishopswood, which is nowhere near Priorswood, where the houses are sparsely situated along either side of a declining road and which is at the most southerly tip of Taunton Deane, people are worried about the problems caused by high hedges. A gentleman whose house I visited there will be pleased that hedges that are affecting him from non-domestic properties are not ruled out, as I understand it.
	I support the amendments, but I have some reservations. After all the work put in by Baroness Gardner of Parkes in another place, by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and of course by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, we still await the objective tests from the Building Research Establishment, although I acknowledge that the Minister said she would bring them in as rapidly as possible. I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North will make sure that that guidance about the objective tests is forthcoming as soon as possible.
	I am particularly concerned for my local council, Taunton Deane, that the fees that it may be able to charge should compensate for some of the costs that it will no doubt incur. We wait to see the Government guidance on that. I should be grateful if, in the time remaining, the Minister would explain how the planning inspectorate will deal with the great rush of appeals that will no doubt materialise once the legislation is passed, as I am sure it will be.

Yvette Cooper: I shall reply briefly to the points that have been raised. The hon. Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) expressed concern about the financial position. They will be aware that that was one of the issues picked up in the debate about the money resolution. Fees can be levied, although consultation is still to take place about the level of those fees and whether they should be set at full cost recovery. If there is a shortfall, we will follow the established procedure for recompensing local authorities for new burdens. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole suggested that that was a concern because of the revenue support grant. In fact, since the reforms were introduced, all authorities receive a positive amount of revenue support grant.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) is right. She and many others have raised the issue of high hedges over a considerable time. I am glad that we have managed to resolve it so publicly before the meeting that she asked for. I pay tribute to her constituent and to Hedgeline for the work that they have done on the matter.
	Although the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) welcomed the measures in the amendments, he said that he was not entirely happy with the mechanism and the fact that a private Member's Bill had been incorporated into a Government Bill in this way. All of us would have preferred the Bill to have passed through the private Member's Bill procedure, and many of us backed it through that procedure. We would not have done so, had it not been quite such an excellent private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.
	We should conclude the debate where we startedby congratulating my hon. Friend, not just on his private Member's Bill, but on his speech, which entertained us and reminded us why we need the amendments. He pointed out that the measures had been debated for a total of 21 hours and 15 minutes. I can now say that, at the end of a total of 22 hours and 20 minutes, I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments and allow us to get the measures finally on to the statute book.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 74 agreed to [Some with Special Entry].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Income Tax

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Chile) Order 2003 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th September.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Income Tax

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order 2003 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th September.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Investigatory Powers

That the draft Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.[Derek Twigg.]
	The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 154.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Investigatory Powers

That the draft Retention of Communications Data (Extension of Initial Period) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.[Derek Twigg.]
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 156.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Fees and Charges

That the draft Department for Transport (Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration Fees) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5268/03, draft Directive on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in decorative paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC; and supports the Government's objectives both of taking measures to reduce emissions of precursors of ground-level ozone across the European Union, recognising that high concentrations of ground level ozone represent a serious public health risk, and also of seeking to reduce as far as possible adverse effects on United Kingdom industry of new European Union legislation.[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Public Accounts

Ordered,
	That Mr David Rendel be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Richard Allan be added.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Standards and Privileges

Ordered,
	That Mr Russell Brown be discharged from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr Stephen Pound be added.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Home Affairs

Ordered,
	That Mr John Bercow be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr John Taylor be added.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Defence

Ordered,
	That Mr Gerald Howarth be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr Crispin Blunt be added.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

International Development

Ordered,
	That Alistair Burt be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr Quentin Davies be added.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Policing (Surrey)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Derek Twigg.]

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise what is an extremely important issue for my constituents and for residents across Surrey. I am delighted to see many of my colleagues from Surrey here tonight. I am delighted also that we are able to start so early in the evening, which gives us the chance to debate the issues fully and properly. I am glad that the Minister is in her place and I look forward to her comments.
	The reason for tonight's debate is the alarming press reports in the past few weeks that the Government plan to make yet another transfer of funding away from the home countiesaway from Surrey and Surrey policeto other parts of the country. The fear has been expressed widely, particularly by the chief constable in the wake of those reports, that if Surrey suffers yet another bad funding settlement this year it will become increasingly difficult to provide to our local residents the policing service they expect. All too often, financial pressures mean that they are not getting it.
	I am not expecting the Minister to stand up and say, Yes, fine. You can have more money for Surrey. However, I hope that she takes away from the debate points that my colleagues and I, want to raise with her to ensure that when the funding settlement is announced it reflects the legitimate concerns of people in Surrey, and that she does not end up short-changing our police service.

Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that many Surrey MPs at least hope that the Minister takes account of the exceptional burdens on Surrey police in the last 12 months? I am thinking not only of the operation relating to the so-called Deepcut deaths in my constituency, but of Operation Ruby relating to the disappearance and tragic murder of Milly Dowler, Operation Orb relating to crimes in respect of the south-east serial rapist and the operation relating to anti-terrorist activity around Heathrow airport. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that when Surrey police, in the light of all those incredibly important inquiries, put in a claim to the Home Office for 1.6 million additional costs owing to those wholly exceptional burdens, only 0.3 million was approved?

Chris Grayling: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Surrey has suffered disproportionately over the past couple of years from major investigations that incur enormous costs from the day-to-day budget, quite apart from the impact of officers being transferred from front-line duties in parts of the county to those central inquiries. That has placed a huge financial burden on the county and made it much more difficult for the chief constable and his colleagues to make a tight budget work effectively in terms of delivery of front-line services.

Paul Beresford: One of the difficulties, in local government as well as in police forces up and down the country, is that this Government tend to give a proportion of the money in grantthe major proportionbut then top up the specific, targeted grants that the local authorities and the police forces have to campaign for. That totally demolishes any predictability, and it is not until part way through the financial year that the police have any idea of their total budget.

Chris Grayling: I endorse that point. The problem with initiatives and funding that is linked to them is that security of funding is not provided. Core funding is often tighter than is suggested by the overall impression created by budgeting at the centre. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of administrative time to try to secure such funds and they are, as my hon. Friend suggests, absolutely unpredictablethis in a county that already has the lowest per capita policing grant in the country by quite some margin.
	When I was newly elected, I raised those issues in a written question to the Home Office and I was quite startled by the gap between Surrey and comparable parts of the country, even the next county up in the league table of per capita grants. There is no doubt that our police force is short-changed, given the real strategic issues that it facesnot only that, but our local taxpayers pay a disproportionate share of the burden. In most areas, some 25 per cent. of a force's budget comes from the police precept.

David Wilshire: Will not the situation continue to worsen if the Government do not change the funding arrangements? Am I right in recalling that the precept was increased by 40 per cent. simply to avoid cuts to make up for money that the Government had taken away? Am I also right in recalling the chief constable's observation that if something was not done about the Government's new regime to penalise police services like the one in Surrey, the Surrey police could face the loss of 500 of their 2,000 officers becausethanks to this wretched Governmentthere would be no money to pay them?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last year our council tax payers had to pay an extra 40 per cent. on the precept. The total proportion of police costs met by local taxpayers is approaching 50 per cent.it is over 43 per cent.and if we have another bad settlement this year, it may even exceed that level. It is nearly twice as much as is expected in other parts of the country. Moreover, the burden often falls on low-paid people who may have public service jobs in, for instance, teaching, on police officers themselves, and above all on pensioners who face retirement on fixed incomes but see their local taxation costs rise year by year, because Surrey is being short-changed on police grants from central Government.
	The Government emphasise the fact that Surrey is a relatively low-crime area, but ignore the fact that it also suffers from widespread antisocial behaviour, especially among gangs on trains. A huge number of troublemakers go up and down railway lines in and out of London. Gangs often travel out of London to Tattenham Corner in my constituency, simply because it is a quieter, less policed area where it is easier to cause trouble. The Government's information also masks crime overflows. Today the chief constable confirmed to me that violent crimes, robberies and burglaries are on the increase.

David Wilshire: Surrey may be a low-crime area historically, but have not the Government just published figures showing a 30 per cent. increase in violent crime there?

Chris Grayling: Indeed. As policing in London is tightened upoften as a result of recruitment from neighbouring countiesit becomes easier for those who wish to cause trouble and commit offences to spill into more lightly policed areas.
	The chief constable expects a 15 to 18 per cent. increase in violent crime this year. As for robbery, the force does not believe it will be able to meet its targets, given current trends, and projects an increase of between 6 and 15 per cent. Its target is 0 per cent., but given the spillover from London it is struggling to keep to 15 per cent.
	Town centres pose a huge policing problem. It is somewhat ironic that this week, in what is undoubtedly a difficult security environment nationally, we can put 14,000 police on the streets of London, and that hundreds of police are on duty for a major football match, while in most town centres there are very few on duty on a Saturday night. I have seen that in my own area when out and about with police cars. On Saturday nights there are often only two response cars available to deal with trouble in town centres.
	On Friday and Saturday nightsI am sure you have the same experience in your area, Madam Deputy Speakerthe trouble worsens, but the police are simply not there to deal with the crowds of troublemakers. The message from the Surrey constabulary is that they are struggling to deal with trouble in the county's top 10 disorder towns, because they do not have the necessary manpower on the ground. It cannot be right for the Government to believe they can take funds from a force that is struggling against the trends of increasing robbery, increasing violent crime and increasing trouble in town centres.
	The reality is that those pressures are causing services to disappear or to be curtailed on the ground. At Epsom police station in my constituencyI have no doubt that those experiences are shared by colleagues in Surreythe custody suite is no longer open except very occasionally; at the moment, it is not open at all, even on a Friday and Saturday night. As I have said, there are few police cars on the roads at peak times. There must be a question mark, if we have another tough funding round, over the future of many of the smaller police stations in the countythat is the reality.
	As all that is happening, front-line officers are facing not just budget cuts but more bureaucracy. A few weeks ago, I had an extremely interesting conversation with one of the senior officers in the county. I asked why we seemed to be able to get so few officers on the road and why, in a force of 2,000 officers, the number out on duty on a Saturday night was so disappointingly small. The answer came back, It is because we are dealing with the bureaucracy, with the target culture, with the expectations that are placed on us by monitoring at the centre.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend said that he spent time going out with Surrey police. I wonder whether he had the experience that I had not long ago going out in Staines, where just after 5 o'clock the officer I was with took someone to the station who was suspected of shoplifting in Sainsbury's. Three and a bit hours later, we finally got back on the street. That is the extent of the paperwork that the Government have imposed on Surrey policefor one officer, three hours for a small case of shoplifting.

Chris Grayling: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
	I looked at the national policing plan and I was shocked by what the Government seem to expect police forces on the ground to do in terms of preparation of materials and information for the centre. Let me quote the policing plan:
	Local three-year strategy plans and annual policing plans must, while contributing to the delivery of national priorities, reflect local circumstances and be responsive to local needs. It is vitally important that police authorities . . . engage with and consult their local communities to identify how far national and local priorities should be reflected in forces' plans and what the appropriate targets should be.
	The Government and the public need to be able to judge whether forces are delivering the quality of service that everyone expects. This requires a robust and transparent performance management system for assessing the effectiveness of forces and individual Basic Command Units (BCUs) in tackling crime and the fear of crime. The planning framework at the end of this document sets out how local plans will be measured in terms of raising police performance,
	and so on. What I want as a citizen and what I believe my constituents want is the police to go out to arrest people who have committed offences, to identify where offences are being committed and to get people in front of the courts. All too often, police officers on the front line are saying to us that they are not able to do that job in the way they would wish because so much time is spent on monitoring, on tracking and on the bureaucracy that the Government are imposing on the police service.
	Interestingly, I talked to one officer last week who said not only that the police are being asked to meet targets but that often the targets are contradictory. The Government have imposed new objectives this year. They want more criminals caught and put in front of the courts and more crimes investigated properly, but some of the performance targets require police simply to get to a certain stage with an investigation and to fill out a certain number of forms. If a crime happens and there is very little likelihood of being able to apprehend the person, they are none the less being asked to go through certain bureaucratic processes in order to go up a notch on the ladder towards achieving their target. They say that, if they could spend their time in the way they prefer, they would focus on the crimes that they can solve and on the criminals who are having the most impact on society, and they would be able to have much more impact on crime trends and on reducing levels of offences.
	That is the feedback from the front line. It is not from me as a politician but from police officers to whom I talk. The danger iswe see it across all the public servicesthat politically imposed targets driven from Whitehall, setting out requirements as they are seen by Ministers and by civil servants, deliver to the front line something that in practical terms does not work.
	My fear is that what is happening in my county, which is represented by all those of my hon. Friends who are present tonight, is that our police force is being asked to do more and more to meet the requirements, targets and bureaucracy of the Home Office. Central Government have set two or three objectives in the national policing plan this year. At the same time, our police force is being asked to do that for less and less money. Year by year, the budget increases have not reflected the increased pension costs and the increase in national insuranceadditional costs imposed by central Government. The consequence is that, ultimately, local police forces such as Surrey police are being asked to do much more for less money, to a point where the only way they can square the circle is by turning to local taxpayers, who are already being asked to do far more than their counterparts in other areas of the country.

Ian Taylor: All hon. Members who represent Surrey share the problem. The Surrey police force is one of the most efficient in the country, and it is led by an excellent chief constable. It has already passed some fairly draconian plans to concentrate resources on the front line. The difficulty is that, with the projected decline in resources relative to other counties, it will have to undertake further cuts, which can only take place at the front line. That is precisely the message that I was hearing even today in Elmbridge from the chief constable and other policemen who were there.

Chris Grayling: I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend says. That is the practical consequence of what is happening, but let me tell the Minister about an even more practical consequencea true story from a few weeks ago. One of my constituents was assaulted on a recreation ground in the village where I live. He was very badly hurt. He was kicked in the headkicked unconsciousand teeth were kicked out of his mouth. The nearest police car was half an hour away. It took half an hour to arrive at the scene of what was undoubtedly the most serious offence committed in my constituency for the past 12 months.
	Such delays should not happen. Someone who is the victim of a serious crime should not wait half an hour for a police car to arrive. Yet if we look across the force on Friday or Saturday nights, there is a very thin blue line of officers protecting people from unruly behaviour, robbery and violent crime. All too often, the police simply do not have the number of officers to respond to lesser misdemeanoursthings that may appear to those in call centres to be not as serious as others, but they may have a great effect on people. They often involve pensioners whose garden fences have been kicked down or who have been terrified by gangs of youths throwing stones at their windows. That is why we need more police on the streets, rather than fewer.
	The Government keep telling us that more police officers than ever are out on the streets protecting us, yet the number of police cars out and about on patrol on Saturday nights in my constituency has fallen from five to two, in a good week, during the past three or four years. That is the reality. Where are the rest of the police officers? Well, they are meeting targets, complying with bureaucracy, dealing with initiatives and working in special units. We have not got enough people in the front line.
	The final reason why this is importantI say this genuinely to the Ministeris that it is very easy to look at the areas outside London and say that they are lower-crime areas than the great metropolis. The situation in north Peckham cannot be compared with that in Epsom, Leatherhead or ReigateI have no doubt at all about thatbut, none the less, such forces cannot be bled dry to pay for policing elsewhere. Not only do they deal with the day-to-day concerns of individual residents, antisocial behaviour, robbery and violence, but they are being asked to deal with terrorism and other major incidents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a moment ago. Ours is a police force that must provide support to Heathrow and Gatwick airports and which must provide policing in an area of the country that is full of potential terrorist targets and of individuals who could be the subject of major criminal activity. It is not the case that many of the security problems that we face in this country will be confined to London. If the forces immediately outside London are bled dry as a result of an attempt to switch finance from one part of the country to another, ultimately, the risks will be enormous.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend refers to forces such as Surrey's being bled dry. Does he agree that one of the ways in which Surrey's force is undermined is that once young police officers are recruited and trained, particularly if they are based in Staines in my constituency, they need only change jobs and go about two miles down the road, and they will get 6,000 more for working in the Metropolitan police? Alternatively, they can get much the same pay by going to Cornwall, where the cost of living is lower. Is that not bleeding dry forces such as Surrey, which pay the training costs and then see their officers being poached?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely endorse my hon. Friend's point. He, I and many other Conservative Members had meetings with the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who listened carefully to the arguments that we put forward. Although the steps that he took were small, and most of the initiatives that have been taken were at county level, he demonstrated an understanding of the problem that I hope that the current Minister will reflect. The purpose of tonight's debate is to appeal to her intelligent view of the challenges that forces such as Surrey face.
	In a few weeks, the Minister will preside over funding announcements that could make a radical difference to the ability of individual forces to deliver a good or bad service. There are undoubtedly pressures on the Home Office in many parts of the country, but the hon. Lady must not be tempted to look at certain areas as low-crime areas and lesser priorities and therefore not resource them properly. A county such as Surrey has antisocial behaviour problems, adverse crime trends in robbery and violence, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) says, it has been and continues to be bled dry by other forces that have the ability to pay more money. Ultimately, the Minister, as much as any of us, needs Surrey police to be able to deliver a quality service. If they cannot do so, everyone will suffernot just the county but the Government, because their reputation will be affected.
	Our message to the Minister is: please do not allow this funding review to lead to a stripping down still further of Surrey police's budget. Please do not force on the taxpayers of Surrey, many of whom are pensioners on fixed incomes, yet another major ratcheting-up of the tax that they pay. Please make sure that Surrey, as a force on the fringe of London, which will have an important role to play not just in local but in national policing issues, receives an equitable settlement. Do not let this force down because it is politically convenient to do so. The Minister and her colleagues have a duty to protect policing in all parts of the country. I know that she is a lady of integrity and diligence in her role. I look to her to ensure that the area that I represent does not suffer adversely in the review over which she is about to preside.

Crispin Blunt: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate? I have been slightly concerned about the body language of the Minister and her Parliamentary Private Secretary during the course of the debate, which seemed to say, That lot down south don't know they're born, and that the difficulties faced in our constituencies are as nothing compared with those in the constituencies that they represent. My concern is that that perception may feed into the decisions that the Minister takes.
	I want to take a little trouble to try to explain the situation to the Minister, who I have not had the opportunity to congratulate on taking up her new responsibilities. Surrey Members have seen not only the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), but his predecessor, who is now Secretary of State for Education and Skills, about Surrey policing.
	The enormous change to the funding for Surrey police since 1997 is at the heart of many of the difficulties that the force faces. It has changed from a reasonably well-funded force to one that, according to any force-by-force comparison, is funded at the bottom end. The Minister's officials will probably be able to give her a proper briefing to that effect, as will Surrey's chief constable, who I am sure will beat a path to her door using not only the representations of Surrey Members but the Home Office chain of command, if I may put it that way.
	There has been a substantial change to the position of Surrey police. The force has been caught by the pressures of the change to the formula and decreasing resources while the relative cost of living in Surrey has continued to rise relentlessly. That means that most of the policemen who live in Surrey do not police Surrey at allthey are Met police. The Minister will be all too aware of the peculiar situation in which policemen are not able to live near the area that they police, and that has consequent disadvantages for the effectiveness of policing and policemen's ability to be present in a community in both their private and public lives.

Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a specific problem in constituencies such as mine and, I think, Epsom and Ewell? Until a few years ago, part of my constituency was in the Metropolitan police area. I thought that the deal that I did with the then Home Secretary was not only that there would be transitional arrangements, which are now being phased out, but that there would be fair funding to recognise the fact that Surrey police's problems, given that it was adjacent to the Met, were likely to get worse because the Met was withdrawing behind the old Greater London area boundaries. The problem will hit us again because of changes to the Met that will cause a sudden loss of about 1,000 officers. The Met will look for replacements elsewhere, and Surrey is a prime target. It might help my hon. Friend to know that I am talking about the Edmund-Davies reforms.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. I share his sense of responsibility, because both our constituencies were split in 1997 before the Greater London area reforms were implemented. The Met policed half my constituency and the other half was covered by Surrey police. He and I tried to ensure that the police boundaries reflected the county boundaries, which was self-evidently common sense for our constituencies. However, the policing of the whole of my constituency has been under constant challenge since that extremely sensible reform was introduced by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
	Of course, an additional problem has arisen owing to the changeover and Surrey's requirement to recruit more officers to police the areas for which it took responsibility from the Met. The Surrey force set up an extremely fine training establishment, but the pressure of the cost of living in Surrey means that newly trained officers discover that, because of the national pay rates that the police enjoy, their quality of life will be substantially better if they move from Surrey to pursue their careers as policemen in other places such as north-west and north-east England. That has had the knock-on effect of increasing the cost of training and retaining officers in Surrey. Surrey has ended up with a young and inexperienced police force compared with other forces throughout the country because the chief constable has had to make a deliberate effort to retain numbers on the ground by reducing the force's payroll. He has done that by shedding experience to save the resources that would pay for it. That has begun to have a serious effect on the style of policing in Surrey. What worries me is that the complaints I now receive from people who are not as well served by the police as they should be are a direct result of the lack of experience of police officers and the challenges that go with trying to police Surrey in a new way with far fewer resources.
	I applaud the chief constable for his efforts to reorganise the police in Surrey to meet his budget constraints, but the Minister needs to understand that the force is about to snap. His strategy will not be sustained if further significant pressure is put on his budget. The Minister should give the issue serious consideration. There is a problem with the quality of policing in Surrey. Its success story in crime prevention is at risk. It is more important to reinforce success than to create failure by thinking that because there is no overt problem, Surrey's excellent record on crime prevention will not get significantly worse.
	We temporarily addressed the funding problem when the current Secretary of State for Education and Skills was the Minister with responsibility for policing. He looked imaginatively and openly at bids for specific pots of funding that might meet the crisis in-year. It is disappointing that only 0.3 million of the 1.6 million of bids for special operations has been paid to Surrey. I urge the Minister to consider using Surrey's special bids to relieve the pressures that it faces. That would allow her, at least temporarily and within the limited powers at her immediate disposal, to assist the force in Surrey, which is under threat. Although that would be no more than a Band-Aid for the next financial year, the mechanism would address the funding formula, which is doing enormous damage to long-term policing in Surrey, until an opportunity arose to rebase the formula, in particular on the 2001 census figures. That would also help to improve the overall performance in Surrey.
	The Minister should not think that the problem is new for Members of Parliament who represent Surrey. The delegations to see her predecessors have been around this buoy for at least four years. This debate is yet more evidence of the problems facing Surrey police. The problems are real and I hope that the Minister will genuinely address them.

David Wilshire: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate and thank the House for giving us the time to do justice to something that is a serious problem at least in my constituency and, I suspect, throughout the county.
	From my observations, there is no doubt in my mind that policing in Spelthorne is in crisis. That is in no way the fault of Surrey police. They could not work harder, try harder or do more. The great problem is, that they are trying to police with one hand tied behind their back because of the lack of resources. I am sick and tired of hearing the Government say, Ah, well, but, we gave everyone 3 per cent. extra last year. That was only because their formula was so awful that they had to doctor it. Had they applied the formula they introduced to Surrey, the grant would have been cut.
	For one year, we had a 3 per cent. increase to fiddle the figuressomething the Government are good atand I have little doubt that if we exert enough pressure, they will fiddle the figures again and thus disguise the reality of the funding formula. The chief constable of Surrey has predicted that if that funding formula is phased in in full according to the Government's timetable, he will lose a sum equivalent to a quarter of his officers. We in Surrey face rising crime: Government figures show a 30 per cent. increase in violent crime and a 10 per cent. increase in overall crime in Surreydespite the figures they spin about national rates. Despite that, if the Government do not relent, Surrey is faced with the prospect of losing 25 per cent. of our officers. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what to say to our constituents when crime rises even more because we have fewer police officers. What do we say, other than that the Government are making a deliberate attempt to take money from Surrey to give it to their cronies elsewhere in the country?
	I understand that the Government are now thinking of increasing the grant by the rate of inflation. A fat lot of good that will do. It does not take account of factors such as pensions, or the cost of training more and more young officers only to watch them go elsewhere. It takes no account of the impact on a force of only 2,000 officers of tragedies such as the Milly Dowler case. Although the Dowler family are not constituents of mine, the investigation was carried out from Staines police station, and I saw for myself the resources that that tragic case required a small police force to give. The Government make no allowance for such events. They say, Come cap in hand afterwards, and we'll see if we can help. When we discover that only a small sum is given, it is too late.
	What is a police force to do when its grant is being cutwhen it is being given only a rate-of-inflation increase and its costs are rising faster than that? I can tell the Minister what Surrey police authority is saying it will have to do if she does nothing. Last year, the precept increased by 40 per cent. simply so that the police authority could stand still in financial termsthe authority was forced to choose between cutting policing in Surrey or making up for the money that the Government were putting elsewhere. Now, on the back of the Government telling us that they will provide only a rate-of-inflation increase, an increase in the precept of a further 17 per cent. is being predictedyet the Minister's colleagues elsewhere in the Government are saying that they intend to make sure that council tax does not increase by much. If the Minister sticks to a grant increase of 2.5 per cent. or thereabouts, and another Minister comes along and caps council tax increases, it will be the equivalent of Government policy forcing a cut in the police service of the county of Surrey. That is a disgrace.
	I know what answer the Minister will give us: she will say that if we start to tinker with the formula, the whole thing will get out of hand. I therefore suggest that between now and making her announcement the Minister examines the problems that Surrey facesthey are not wholly unique, but they are certainly special. The cost of living issue has been gone over year after year and we have yet to see a solution. My hon. Friends have explained that parts of their constituencies used to be policed by the Met; the whole of mine was until the changes they described occurred. The impact on Surrey has already been mentioned: there is a huge need to recruit new people because the officers who were seconded to Surrey police during the transition period have now returned to the Met. The number of officers recruited is therefore large, and they are young.
	Our recruitment record is excellent. Surrey police are doing a splendid job and recruiting is not an issue. The issue is that a lot of youngsters enter the police service and get themselves fully trained while living in and around Surrey; then, when they need to set up home on their own or move elsewhere in the county, they discover that the salary they are getting simply will not cover the cost of finding a house, getting married and bringing up a child or two.
	What happens? Either they go to a much cheaper part of the country or they say, All we need to do is walk up the road, cross the Metropolitan police authority boundary and we will be 6,000 better off. They can do that without leaving where they live in my constituency. The Minister needs to do something about that. She should say to police forces elsewhere that if they recruit from authorities such as Surrey, they should make some payment towards the contribution that Surrey has made to training, rather than using Surrey as a soft touch. I recall that the forces of Gloucestershire or Devon and Cornwall have never spent a penny on advertising for police officers for many years. They do not need to. They simply have to pop along the M4 or the M3 to have a chat with people in Surrey. They can then fill all their vacancies. The Minister could usefully stop that without upsetting her formula.
	The Minister could examine carefully the London weighting arrangements. We have been round this course before. Those of us who are right up against the Metropolitan police authority boundary need to have something to give to police officers to encourage them to stay. The chief constable and the Surrey police authority have done a huge amount within the resources that are available to them, but they cannot negotiate their own pay and conditions; they are bound by national agreements. The Minister might care to examine that.
	More than anything else the Minister must treat Surrey and other such places fairly. She must stop regarding my county and my constituency as a ready source of cash that can be squandered among her cronies in the midlands and the north. It is high time that that stopped. It is high time also that the Minister accepted that everybody pays their taxes and that they are all entitled to a fair share. Unfortunately, Surrey is not getting it, but despite that Surrey police are doing marvellously. They are trying harder and harder, but they end up standing still. That is not the fault of Surrey police. Every time the Minister publishes figures showing an increase in crime in Surrey, it is not the fault of the police; it is her fault. The Government should be ashamed of what they are doing to the people of Surrey.

Ian Taylor: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for initiating this debate. As long as the Minister does not get too excited or relieved, I shall start by saying something complimentary. The Home Office grant for the CCTV cameras that were launched today in Walton-on-Thames is greatly to be welcomed. It is an interesting benchmark project. The hon. Lady was due to unveil the plaque, but other business unavoidably detained her. Therefore, I carried out that duty for her. I was called Hazel Blearsthat is in the sense of a quotation, Madam Deputy Speaker, before you call me to orderbecause that was the name on the plaque. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Home Office for the money. I was delighted to see the reassuring effect that it has on the community.
	The second compliment that I would pay is that we are grateful for the reassurance money that has come into Surrey and certainly into Elmbridge, which is the borough in which my constituency resides. That is of great importance and it is much welcomed by the police.
	Given those two positive items, I hope that the Minister will listen carefully when I say that there are some big negatives. The chief constable genuinely believes that if he can prove that reassurance projects workI know that there is a trial periodtheir funding will not be withdrawn if a new initiative comes along or if pressures elsewhere in the country demand that Surrey makes further cuts. If that were to happen, it would be catastrophic and would hugely damage the morale of police officers who are working extremely hard on the project. Like my colleagues, I am extremely impressed by the dedication of all the officers, right up to the chief constable.
	The police have serious problems in achieving what they want to achieve on the front line. I have had several conversations with the key officers covering my constituency, who understand the pressures. Each part of the country differs; nevertheless, the borough of Elmbridge has not done well recently on crime. I do not blame Surrey police for that. There is not a great deal of violent crime, although recently there have been worrying instances of gun crime. The problem has not got out of hand but, like other parts of the country, we are increasingly suffering from drug-related crime, which leads to petty theft and sometimes more serious theft. If the police are stretched at the front line, it is difficult for them to respond to such crime.
	Another problem arising from the county's adjacency to London is the fact that London is an avid exporter of criminals. Our road network, not least the M25, means that we are sometimes a target area for criminals from Liverpool or Bristol, who decide that Surrey is a soft touch. In addition, there are unreasonable strains on the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned the tragedy of Milly Dowler, whose family live in my constituency. She was abducted from Walton station in my constituency; we know not how or why. We do know that she is dead. At various stages in the inquiry, 100 officers were involved, based at the headquarters in Staines. A core of officers is still involvedthe case cannot be allowed to rest unsolved, because it is possible that the perpetrator of the crime lives locally. If so, history tells us the perpetrator will strike again. I do not wish to worry my constituents or other people in Surrey, but we must be concerned about that possibility. We cannot abandon the case simply because we do not know why Milly disappeared in full daylight at 4 o'clock outside Walton station, only to be found in woodlands just over the county border.
	That is a real burden, but other issues in Surrey are stretching resources. Surrey police are ready and willing to react, but there is the problem of whether retrospective compensation is available. The presence at Heathrow, for example, is not an inexpensive burden: it is an added strain on an already stretched budget. We must then consider the points made by my hon. Friends. In my own constituency, I have heard that there are apologies if two policemen or women are spotted walking around togetherthe explanation is that one of them is being trained. There is a constant loss of trained officers. It is a bit like London busesyou wait for one, then suddenly two come along together. In the case of the police officers, the trouble is, of the two, one is untrained.
	That is a serious problem. I do not know the economics of trying to compensate Surrey for the loss of trained officers to other forces, but it is a big problem that deserves serious consideration, not least because Surrey invests in training. Another problem in Surrey is living costs. It is not uncommon for recruits to Surrey police to live a long way away. They do a five-day shift, sleep on someone's floor, then go home to another part of the United Kingdom. That is good for Surrey while they are there, but it is not a sustainable basis for a police force. However, it is the result of the cost of living in Surrey. House prices in my constituency average 410,000, so the problem is not trivial. Our debate is about the police, but other public services are seriously affected by the difficulty of living locally.
	I urge the Minister to bear in mind the fact that some of us willingly negotiated with the Home Secretary of the day the transfer of the bulk of what was then my constituency to the Surrey police area. I have no criticism of the willingness of Surrey police to police. They have a profound interest in community policing, which pleases me, but they are stretched. If Surrey is considered one of the best police forces in the country, the squeeze under the formulae will turn it into one of the less good. I ask the Minister to consider that. It cannot be a Government objective. They surely want to maintain a good force, not with a largesse of resources, but not through under-funding, which means that what the force does well today, it will not be able to do tomorrow.
	My balanced approach is to thank the Minister for what the Home Office has done, which is welcomed. On a non-party political basis, we recognise that certain initiatives that the Government have taken are good. Please will the Minister make sure that those initiatives are not suddenly withdrawn, and please will she realise that, underlying my praise, there is deep concern that she is presiding over a decline, year by year, in the capacity of the Surrey force to deal with a front-line county problem.

Paul Beresford: I shall add a few points to those that my hon. Friends have, I hope, managed to hammer home. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for allowing us to take part in the debate.
	The biggest problem facing the police force, not just in Surrey but throughout the country, also faces organisations such as local authorities and the national health service. It is the unpredictability of the funds that they receive. The Government seem unable to resist the temptation to top-slice the funding and maintain control of it even after it is allocated locally. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has a similar approach to local government. Control is maintained by introducing targets, allocating funds for specific purposes and top-slicing, so there is no predictability. Local authorities, the police force and the NHS all have to go through loops and hoops to gain funding, which they receive part of the way through the year. That leaves the police force unable to implement the service in such a way as to meet the targets and demands set by the Home Office.
	Policemen and bureaucrats in the police force in Surrey and elsewhere spend an astronomical amount of time and money to meet demands for best value, Audit Commission targets and the requirements of the various inspectorates that descend on every police force. I have not done my homework, but I should do so in preparation for the next occasion we meet the Minister. Can she give us some information about the amount of money spent by various police authorities and the proportion of their time spent providing documentation in response to demands from the Home Office and the Audit Commission, and the demands of best value and all the other targets imposed on the police force? If the top-sliced money were returned and the pressure to meet targets removed, the money could go directly into policing.
	I shall touch on the disadvantage of being close to London, which has already been mentioned and applies to all the surrounding local authorities. The unique feature of Surrey is that the two major London airports are located nearby. The international aspects of crime have been felt by London for many years. As London policing improves, international crime is starting to hit places like Surrey dramatically.
	The other disadvantage is that Surrey's attractiveness to those seeking housing has led to high prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said, the average cost of a house in his constituency is 400,000, and it is not much less in mine. The efforts to establish housing associations to secure low-cost home ownership will achieve a temporary, short-term advantage, but the net effect will be to fuel the fire, as the cost of housing in the area is likely to rise as an indirect result of low-cost home ownership. We need to persuade the Government to consider the problems more broadly and take a regionalif I dare use that phrase, as there is no such thing as a south-east regionand economic approach across the nation, rather than simply taking a national approach.
	Other difficulties in Surrey include traffic problems. There is a list of major roads, including the A25, A24 and A29, as well as the M25 and A3, which are motorways, that have to be policed because they go through villages that have narrow pavements, tiny bending roads and ancient houses, with a constant threat of enormous accidents. As far as I can see, the crime prevention officers dealing with traffic in my patch number only one man, yet there are areas throughout my constituency along the A25, A24 and A29 that are used literally as race tracks. It is well known that motor cyclists have race tracks running through our area.
	The police have to concentrate all their traffic work force on specific areas at specific times to try to deal with that problem, which deprives other areas, including some villages. I have just received a huge petition from Ockley, a little village situated on the A29 that has three fabulous old pubs. In the village, that road is called Staines lane. It is a dead straight Roman road and the speed limit is 40 mph. In much of the area, only one side of the road has a pavement, and it is approximately 1.5 ft wide. Cars and motor bikes travel along it at well over 100 mph at all hours of the day and night. The petition is huge. Indeed, to my dismay, at the bottom of the covering letter, the signatory said that only part of the petition from that tiny village had been sent. The police cannot handle the problem.
	Another problem has been highlighted by the National Farmers Union, which has lobbied me and local police in Surrey about crime on agricultural land involving not merely theft of small hand tools, but robberies in which vehicles such as combine harvesters and so on have been removed. The flow of wheeled vehicles from Surrey's agricultural areas to areas as far away as Ireland is becoming notorious. The police have diverted extra efforts, funds and personnel into special campaigns in an attempt to stem the problem, and they have had some success. While they are doing that, the gangs to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred get back on the trains, come out of London and move through Epsom, Leatherhead, Great Bookham, Effingham and Guildford. The havoc that they create at each of the stops, given half an opportunity, is the sort of thing that I used to expect when I lived in central London, but the policing there was very much greater.
	There is a lot that can be done, even with the little budget that I am sure the police will get, but I ask the Minister above all to consider ways of reducing the strain on the Surrey police force and every other police force in terms of demands to produce papers and meet targets that may not be relevant, as well as to reduce the demands of best value and cut bureaucracy. She and her colleagues have said that they will do that. We hear a lot about it, but see no results. If we do not get such action, policing in Surrey, which is good but slipping, will slump.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply to hon. Members who raised a whole series of issues about policing in Surrey. I am pleased that we have had a lengthy time in which to discuss the subject, particularly following three hours of debate on the Floor of the House on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I am sure that our discussions will be productive.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing an additional debate to the one that he obtained in February last year. I would not go so far as to say that he has a record on the subject, but he is clearly making good points on behalf of his constituents. Other hon. Members said that they have been round the houses on these issues and have been to see various Ministers.
	I congratulate the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on the constructive way in which they made their comments. I certainly undertake to think carefully about the issues that they raised, and I shall do my best to respond to them now.
	I very much thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton for standing in for me this morning at the launch of the CCTV campaign, and I apologise for not being there. I was devastated to realise that I could not attend, and I have undertaken to carry out a further visit to the force in Surrey as soon as I possibly can. Having had the great pleasure of meeting the chief constable, Denis O'Connor, on several occasions since I took up this post, I am personally very impressed by his creativity, imagination and deep commitment to the people in the community that his force serves. I look forward enormously to returning, and hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to be present as well.
	I want to deal primarily with police funding, police numbers, recruitment and retention. First, I shall say a few words about funding, because that is clearly a matter of key concern. I will shortly announce details of the 200405 provisional police funding settlement; hon. Members will appreciate that until I have done so, I am not in a position to provide specific details. I can say, however, that Government expenditure on policing has increased by 30 per cent. over the past three yearsa significant extra investment, as I am sure hon. Members will acknowledge.

Chris Grayling: rose

Paul Beresford: rose

Hazel Blears: I want to make a bit more progress. I sat and listened to the hon. Gentlemen for an hour and a half, and enjoyed it enormously, but I want to get through a little more of the funding background and then I will certainly give way.
	Funding is rightly allocated by formula. I assure hon. Members that that is not a capricious systemindeed, I understand that it was originally introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), so it has a pedigree that they would recognise. It allocates available funding on the basis of projected need for policing services, taking into account population, social factors and policing activity. The whole basis of the formula is to try to allocate the resources that we haveeven with our significant increases, it is still a finite potto the areas of greatest need. The formula also underpins the revenue support grantRSGthat is provided to every police authority by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government. The RSG is an equalising grant that takes into account the resources that are available to each local authority.
	I do not accept, therefore, that Surrey is unfairly funded. However, all Governments have seen the importance of damping the impact of change. As hon. Members said, Surrey received a 3 per cent. increase last year. We have used the damping effects of the formula, as well as floors and ceilings. Surrey has been considerably better funded over the past nine yearsnot just during the term of this Governmentthan it would have been had there been an unrestrained application of the formula as it was originally set out. The damping effect has alleviated the pressure on Surrey's funding by some 10 per cent.
	There were additional specific grants as well as the 3 per cent. general policing grant that Surrey received in the past year. The 3 per cent. general policing grant took Surrey police to 85.4 million and they received an extra 10.8 million on top of that. That includes 3.9 million from the crime fighting fund for additional officers, 3.4 million for the Airwave communications project and just under 1 million for DNA funding to ensure that Surrey police can take greater advantage of matches on the DNA database.
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned top-slicing for specific grants. Almost all the top-slicing is for matters that the police say that they want to pursue. I remind Conservative Members that the previous Government set aside funding for 5,000 extra officers, yet not one single extra officer was employed despite the inclusion of the funding in the general formula. The money was spent not on extra police officers but on other items. One of the remarkable successes of the Government's introduction of the crime fighting fund is that the money has gone towards the intended goal: getting extra officers throughout the country, including Surrey. Together with the extra community support officers, of whom there will be 63 in Surrey, we are beginning to experience at least higher visibility policing, for which local people in Surrey and elsewhere have long cried out. I therefore believe that some of the top-slicing is justified for the crime fighting fund, the rural policing fund, which people have demanded to take account of sparsity in rural areas, and the Airwave investment, which is a massive investment in bringing forces' communications technology up to date and making it fit for the 21st century.

Paul Beresford: The problem with the Minister's argument is that she tries to apply national criteria to local issues and people. We have a local police authority and a local police force. It would be much better to put the money back into the pool, use a proper funding formula to distribute it and let local people determine how they want to use it to meet local demands and the fluctuations and variations in crime in their areas.

Hazel Blears: Earlier, I said that the previous Government put in money for extra police officers but did not manage to get a single one. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is a top priority. However, I shall deal with local versus national standards, which is an important part of our debate in the public sector as well as specifically in the police force. I hope he acknowledges that the funding formula is not sufficiently sophisticated or sensitive in all cases to target some of the resources at the important issues. That applies to the rural policing grant. That is why we have kept it as a separate pot of money for which people do not have to bid. It is allocated to the forces that operate in rural areas and they have universally welcomed that.

Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: I want to consider police numbers. Under the crime fighting fund, we have provided not only more than 9,000 additional officers nationally but an additional 140 posts in Surrey. Comparisons with 1997 are difficult in Surrey because boundaries have changed, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton said.
	As well as the extra 140 posts, it is important to note that police staff strength in the force has increased significantly. In the current police area, the number has increased by 248 in the past two years. All hon. Members accept that it is vital to maximise the skills of police staff if we are to release more police officers for front-line duties. We therefore want as much of a skill mixif I may use that expressionas possible in the police force so that members of police staff increasingly carry out some of the duties that previously only uniformed and full warranted officers undertook. We can thus release warranted officers to do some of the front-line duties that only they can carry out.
	Surrey police force is a leader in developing work force modernisation. Necessity is occasionally the mother of invention and I am delighted that Surrey police have grasped the agenda and are leading the way on projects, which, I hope, will inform the skill mix of the police force nationally. Indeed, we are currently negotiating with them about the way in which we can invest some of the 8 million for work force modernisation in developing some of the ideas of which they are at the forefront.

David Wilshire: We all accept that the numbers of both police officers and support staff have gone up in the current Surrey police force area, but when the Minister quotes such figures, will she tell us how much of that rise in numbers relates to an overall increase caused by the substantial increase in the size of the police force area, and how much to real extra money?
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

David Wilshire: What proportion of the figures that the Minister is citing is the result of the big increase in the size of the Surrey police force area, and what proportion is really extra manpower, after allowance has been made for the fact that the area is bigger? She seems to be taking credit to which she is not entitled to.

Hazel Blears: Far be it from me to seek to present figures that are anything less than absolutely accurate. It is true that Surrey has 140 extra posts and an extra 248 police staff. Part of the money for those is provided through the crime fighting funda specific grant designed to increase the number of police officersas happens in the rest of the country. I have already explained that funding is allocated on the basis of a formula that takes into account the policing needs of an area as well as its population, social deprivation factors and so on. There is a fairly complex balance involved in meeting an area's need for policing services, and I am delighted that Surrey, like every other area in the country, now has record police numbers.

David Wilshire: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears: No; now I want to move on to retentionan issue that has been raised by several hon. Members. Retention is a problem not only for the police but for public bodies throughout the south-east. I recently had a meeting with the chairs of police authorities and chief constables from several forces in the south-east, to discuss some of the proposals that were made last year to deal with retention, and decide whether we could do anything further to assist. I am very conscious of the difficulties that those problems cause for the force, and of the fact that in recent years there have been significant transfers into the Metropolitan police when it has been recruiting.
	Surrey police have responded well to that agenda, not only on the financial elements of the strategy for retention, but on skills mix, management and corporate culture. They have done a lot of work on analysing why people want to resign and work elsewhere, and they have tried to change the way in which the organisation functions, so as to give people a sense that they are part of a force in which they have a future and career options, and are engaged in worthwhile work. I have been impressed by Surrey's grasp of that corporate agenda, which seeks to make the best of the people working for it. Surrey police are quickly positioning themselves as a model in that respect, and we hope to learn from the good practice that the chief constable has introduced.

Crispin Blunt: The compliments and bouquets that the Minister is handing out to the chief constable and the Surrey force are welcome. She said that necessity is the mother of invention. In a previous incarnation, she was responsible for the provision of health services in the south-east, so how many of the relentless pressures on public services does she think have a common corethe cost of living in the south-east?

Hazel Blears: Everybody would acknowledge that the cost of living, particularly the cost of housing, is one of the biggest pressures on public service workers in the south-east. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton said that the average price of a house in his constituency was 400,000; the average price in my constituency is probably nearer 50,000 or 60,000. That is the measure of the difference that can exist between the north and south of this country. We have been trying to come up with ideas, such as housing for key workers, and shared and joint equity schemes, in which people purchase the first 20 per cent. of their property and then seek to add to that proportion as their income increases. The problem of how to live in the south-east and sustain a family life besets not only the public sector but the lower-paid people in the private sector.
	For the Surrey force, the first thing that we have tried to do is change the criteria for the crime fighting fund, so that there are no rewards for recruiting through transfer. That means that forces in places such as Devon and Cornwall, which people might find attractive to work in, no longer get an incentive through the crime fighting fund to recruit through transfer. They now have to recruit by growing their own officers. That is now beginning to have an effect, and the rate of transfers is slowing down.
	We put 3.6 million into Surrey last year for joint equity housing schemes, and we have raised the threshold for forces in the south-east to make special priority paymentsincluding an increase from the standard 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. in Surrey. Officers now get a 2,000 a year allowance because they live in that area. Just two weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister launched the communities plan, which contains a significant element for key worker housing. Surrey police have provided evidence of need and a willingness to engage in putting in a contribution themselves. I am delighted about that, and we are going to explore with the Deputy Prime Minister whether there is room for taking significant steps under the communities plan.

Ian Taylor: Will the Minister extend the assurance that she has just mentioned in terms of the crime fighting fund to the Metropolitan police's need to replace officers in the near future? In Surrey, we think that we are going to be raided, and if there were a bar on the Metropolitan police's taking what to them is the easy route of taking ready trained police officers from counties such as Surrey, it would be a great reassurance to the people there. It would not necessarily give the police officers staying in Surrey any increase in income, but let us try to separate those two issues. I am trying to prevent a raid from taking place in the near future on what are already scarce officer resources in the county.

Hazel Blears: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but it would be wrong, and probably unlawful, for me to say to officers that they cannot choose of their own free will where they want to be employed and to exercise their skills. I am conscious, however, of the fact that forces such as Surreyit is not unique in this regardinvest in training, which entails certain costs, only to see people creamed off and going to another force. That is an issue, and if we can address it without unduly restricting the freedom of officers to work where they want to, I will certainly undertake to look into that.

Paul Beresford: I agree with the Minister on that matter. In contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), I do not think that there should be any restrictions of that kind. We have suggested before, however, that there could be a dowry to cover some of the costs involved in such cases. Such a dowry or penalty could act as a disincentive to the Metropolitan police from taking young, newly trained policemen and women from Surrey. It would partly compensate Surrey for the cost, but it would also provide a disincentive to the Metropolitan police in terms of raiding Surrey's policemen and women.

Hazel Blears: I am aware that that issue has also been raised in the Thames Valley force. It is referred to there as a transfer fee rather than a dowry, but I am sure that it is a similar idea. As I have said, this issue is in my mind, but at the moment I am not convinced that we have an effective mechanism for achieving what we want without impinging on the freedom of individuals. I will keep the matter under review, and I recently met the chairs of the police authorities and the chief constables to discuss recruitment and retention in the south-east. I have undertaken to meet them again in a few months' time to review whether we have made any progress under the communities plan, and what is being achieved on joint equity and key worker housing. I will continue to review that. It is also fair to say that the special priority payments are only now coming into effect. It will be interesting to see what impact they have in places such as Surrey, where we have lifted the cap from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. I will also keep that matter under review.
	I would like to say a few words about community support officers. I am pleased to say that in Surrey we funded 52 such officers last year. I also understand that there will be a further 11, making 63 altogether. That is a significant body of resource to help to tackle the antisocial behaviour that hon. Members have mentionedI am aware that antisocial behaviour happens not only in inner-city communities. It happens, unfortunately, right across this country, and in some of our rural areas it is even more of a problem, especially when it is linked with excessive alcohol consumption and the intimidation and harassment that are sometimes associated with that. I am very aware of those issues and community support officers in particular can help on the antisocial behaviour agenda.
	That is the case for a number of reasons. One is that such officers are in place all the time, as they do not get abstracted for other things such as major operations. That means that they are able to build relationships with local people, especially the young. Quite often, young people will have a different relationship with a community support officer from that with a fully warranted police officer. That is proving extremely successful.
	I understand that Surrey has created a new post of youth community support officer. Again, that is very innovative. There are 11 of those officersone for each basic command unit area in Surreyeach with a specific brief to work with young people. Preventing the crime and disorder in the first place is better for the young people and the communities involved. I shall be very interested indeed to look at the force's evaluation of those youth community support officers, because this idea is very exciting indeed.
	Despite the initial misgivings about community support officers that I am sure hon. Members voiced when the Police Reform Act 2002 was considered, I would hope that they acknowledge that those officers are doing an extremely useful job right across the country.

Chris Grayling: Surely the Minister agrees that, as officers in my constituency have described to me, there are people who commit public order offences on a Friday or a Saturday night who are not arrested, simply because making those arrests would take the officers off the streets for several hours. As there are only a couple of cars in the neighbourhood, such offenders are effectively let off. Surely that situation, regardless of the presence of community support officers and regardless of those other initiatives, means that there is an enormous flaw at the heart of policing.

Hazel Blears: I want to say two things to the hon. Gentleman about that. One involves policing the night-time economypubs and clubsand one involves utilising police civilian staff, but they have a common thread, which is similar to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Reigate: when policing services are under pressure, people often come up with creative solutions that represent genuine progress. I shall give two examples.
	Manchester has a project named Manchester city centre safe. There was a similar problem in Manchester, as there were only 20 police officers to patrol the city centre on Friday and Saturday nights, which was completely insufficient to deal with the problems that arose. A partnership group involving the local authority, the pubs and clubs, the bars and the bus company has been created. They are all wired up to the same police net and they are guaranteed a response from the police officers within a couple of minutes.
	That means that the door supervisors, the bar managers and what are called bus loaders from the bus companyall the sober, responsible adultsare out on the street, all in uniform and all highly visible. Instead of there being 20 police officers to police the city centre on Fridays and Saturdays, we have a skills-mix work force of 100 people who are able to ensure that the city centre is a safe and good place for thousands of people to visit. They can have a good time and get home safely. That is about working smarter, and it has been achieved without an extra penny of police expenditure because they have drawn in all the people who are, as it were, community protection workers. That covers a much wider base than simply the narrow police family.
	The second issue is officers being off the streets because they are dealing with paperwork. That is a genuine complaint from many police officers, although I am told that we have got rid of 5,000 forms so far. Under the Police Reform Act, we introduced four new categories of worker: detection, investigating, custody and escort officers. Again, those people would not necessarily have to be fully warranted police officers, but they could do some custody work in terms of processing as well as escort work in terms of taking prisoners to and from different places.
	In one pilot scheme, civilian officers under the supervision of a sergeant are doing the escort duties in a rural area where it normally takes for ever to get people to and from detention. About 1,100 police days have been saved in the work that they have been doing over the past 12 months. That is a real success story for people in the service such as those in Surrey, who are prepared to think differently about policing. Trying to think in that way represents the future of our reform programme.
	As has been pointed out, I used to be a health Minister, and as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will know, the skill mix in the health service has been accepted for a long time. Nurses now do things that only doctors used to do, and GPs do things that only consultants used to do. The agenda is the same in the police service.
	Let me say something about Surrey's crime figures. I acknowledge that people are entitled to a minimum level of policing wherever they live, and Members have made a case for national standards rather than locality policing, but it should be noted that recorded crime in Surrey is about half the average in the rest of the country. There are nine burglaries per 1,000 of the population compared with an average of 17 in the rest of the country, and eight cases of violence against the person compared with an average of 16 in the rest of the countrywhich means that Surrey's figure is well below those in high-crime areas. There are fewer vehicle crimes in Surrey, and there is one robbery per 1,000 of the population compared with a national average of twoadmittedly a small figure in itself.
	I am not suggesting that Surrey is safe and therefore does not need policingit clearly does need policing, as does the rest of the countrybut we should see the figures in perspective. They are about half the national average. The top 40 crime and disorder reduction partnerships show much larger figures. People living in those communities can also legitimately expect to live in as much safety as possible. That is why we are trying to achieve convergence between forces' performance, so that the worst performers attain the standards of the best.

David Wilshire: Depriving Surrey of money will cause the crime figures to rise. Presumably the aim of convergence is to raise Surrey's crime figures to the national average. The Minister seems to be saying that because the figures are low, Surrey must not need the money. Crime is rising, and perhaps when it has risen enough the Government will relent.

Hazel Blears: I was trying to make a reasonable, sensible point, unlike the hon. Gentleman.
	There has been an application for special grant, and only 0.3 million has been paid. There is a general agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities that in the event of a special event or a big investigation, the police force involved normally pays 1 per cent. of its budget, although a small force would pay less. In Surrey's case the amount would be 1.49 million, but I understand that it has made another application, and we are considering its request. I will undertake to consider it personally in the light of the work that the force can do.
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley asked about the future reform programme, and wanted to know whether we could find space in the national policing plan and national standards for more local determination of what the emphasis should be. As he probably knows, a couple of weeks ago we issued a major consultation document entitled Policing: Building Safer Communities Together. We are open to consultation for the next three months on how we can make the police more connected to local communities in terms of both accountability and deciding what their work should be, while retaining a national framework and national standards to ensure that people throughout the country are entitled to decent policing levels. The last thing we want is postcode policing; after all, we have managed to end postcode health services.
	We are also interested in exploring the earned-autonomy agenda as we did in the case of the NHS, and the possibility of a lighter touch in the inspection and auditing of forces that are performing well. However, I have been quite surprised since I took on this post by the dearth of data in the police service. For years and years, the police service has not had any national framework or national structure. It is crucial that a performance management system is properly embedded in our police service, so that we can drive up performance throughout the country. I genuinely think that, unless we have the data and some targets, we will not see reductions similar to those that we have seen since 1997 in the rate of vehicle crime and in burglary. Robberies have gone down by 17 per cent. in the past couple of yearsthere have been 17,000 fewer victims of robbery because we have helped forces to drive that agenda forward.
	There is always room for debate about where the targets should be set, who should determine them and how we can get more local input, but I am convinced that having a proper performance management framework, as the American police do, which means that forces know what they are doing and where they can target their resources, is crucial to driving up standards. Simply having a free-for-all, where people are allowed to do exactly as they like, does not result in driving up standards in public services.
	For my part, I am convinced that there is a role for Government. How big that role should be I am prepared to debate. I personally want to see a bigger role for local communities in setting priorities. I think it was the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police who said to me the other day that probably the biggest issue for people in Tooting was prostitution on Tooting common. He went on to say that he could find little head room in the national policing plan to deal with such an issue, but that if he failed to do so local people would not feel they were being properly policed and supported. I shall bear that genuine point in mind when we look at getting the balance right between devising a national framework and national standards and encouraging as much local devolution as we possibly can, not just at force level but beyond that to basic command unit level and beyond that to neighbourhood level. We want people to feel that they have a real stake in what happens in their community, in their street, in their neighbourhood and in their local park and that they feel that the police are meeting the priorities that they set.
	I am delighted to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate. Hon. Members have raised some important issues. I hope that they are satisfied that we are looking carefully at the funding decisions before the provisional settlement is made, and that we will try to make our decisions on as fair and transparent a basis as possible. It is vital, particularly in relation to funding, that everyone can see how those decisions are reached, and that they are made on rational grounds to try to reflect policing needs in communities, while also taking into account the fact that everyone is entitled to decent policing. People pay their taxes. They are entitled to public services and we shall ensure that they get them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

NOTHING